Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Meena on 10 March, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURT:
NEW DELHI
SC 76/2022
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR MEENA
FIR No. 292/2019
PS: Sagarpur
U/s 308/341/342/506 IPC
DLND010015132022
STATE VS. ANIL KUMAR MEENA
SC No. : 76/2022
Date of offence : Intervening night
26/27.06.2019
Accused : Anil Kumar Meena
S/o Sh. Kajodmal Meena
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 1 of 61
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan
by Syed Zishan
Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali
Date:
2026.03.10
17:19:27
Warsi +0530
2
R/o Village Mainpura
PS Guda Gaurji
Distt. Jhunjhunu
Rajasthan
Offence : U/s. 308/341/342/506 IPC
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 13.01.2020
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of committal : 18.02.2022
Date of arguments : 12.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 10.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Accused person was committed for trial vide order dated 18.02.2022 by court of Ms. Manu Shree, Ld. MM-03, Patiala House Court, New Delhi District, New Delhi.
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 2 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:19:38 Warsi +0530 3
2. On 23.02.2022, police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was put before Sh. Anil Antil, ASJ-04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi with a view to put accused on trial.
3. Brief facts on the basis of which charge sheet was filed in the present matter are as follows :-
3.1. On 27.06.2019 ASI Yagaya Dutt Sharma was on emergency duty and on receipt of DD No. 10A he alongwith Constable Sandeep reached the spot i.e. bus stand Sagarpur, New Delhi where complainant / injured did not met him and on inquiry, he came to know that PCR Van took the complainant to hospital. Thereafter they reached DDU Hospital where he came to know that injured Gulab w/o Anil Kumar, age 34 years, R/o Geetanjali Park, Sagarpur was admitted in the hospital on MLC No. 5591/19. He met the injured Gulab in the hospital, there was injury on her eye, swelling and black spot around her eye and she stated that she had injury on her internal body. She stated State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 3 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.10
17:19:48
Warsi +0530
4
that she was not feeling well, pain in her body and her mental condition was not good and she would give her statement later on. He had collected the MLC No. 5591/19 of the injured Gulab and doctor had written A/H/O physalt assault as told by her and PCR call was remained pending. Thereafter on 01.07.2019, the complainant had recorded her complaint in the PS, same was marked to him by SHO and the same was received by him. In her complaint, she had stated that she was residing at H. No. RZ-
1037, Gali No. 5/8, Main Sagarpur, Delhi. On 26.06.2019, her husband came at home after having liquor and he quarreled with her and thereafter he went from the house. He again came back to home, also brought a liquor bottle with him, she was watching match in evening, he had taken out liquor bottle and he started consuming the same and forcing her to drink the liquor. When she refused to drink the liquor, he forcefully put the glass full of liquor in her mouth and he threw the said glass on her face and started beating her and tried to kill her by pressing her neck, when she requested him please did not beat her but he did not agree and started beating by slapping, foot, and fist, when she State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 4 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:20:06 +0530 5 started weeping he closed her mouth and snatched her phone and while she was moving out of the room, in the meantime, he suddenly locked the room from inside and started strangulating her neck and if she would lodge police complaint against him he would kill her. He also put a knife on her neck and threatened to cut her neck. He told her he would kill her and he would go to jail. She requested him by holding his foot please did not beat her, leave her but he did not leave her and continuously beaten her. He pressed her neck by his both hands she was loosing her breathe then she kicked his stomach by her foot and she pushed him and come out of the room and outside gate was opened by landlord. Her husband followed her when she was going to police station and he stopped her way and he threatened her to kill if she lodge a complaint and also slapped her twice at Sagapur bus stand and threatened to kill her and he fled away from there. Thereafter she made a call at 100 number from Sagarpur bus stand.
3.2. During investigation, IO had visited the house of the State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 5 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Date:
Ali 2026.03.10
17:20:14
Warsi +0530
6
accused Anil Kumar Meena i.e. Village Mainpura, PS Guda Gaurji, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan where his mother and father met him, his father told him that Anil Kumar Meena is his son and working in Hotel at Jaipur. Thereafter, IO had shown notice for 14.10.19 issued by Ms. Prabhjeet Kaur, Ld. M.M., Patiala House Court, New Delhi on the complaint of complainant Gulab Kumari Meena and talked to accused Anil Kumar Meena on phone and accused Anil Kumar Meena told him that he will appear in the court on 14.10.2019. Thereafter, NBW were issued against the accused Anil Kumar Meena. Thereafter IO arrested the accused and produced him before Ms. Shriya Aggarwal, Ld. M.M., and accused Anil Kumar Meena was sent to JC till 18.11.2019. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused u/s 308/341/242/506 IPC.
4. Charge under Section 308/325/341/342/506 IPC was framed against accused Anil Kumar Meena on 19.05.2022. On the facts that on the night intervening 26/27.06.2019 at about 11.30 PM at House No. RZ-1037, Gali No. 5/8, Main Sagar Pur, State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 6 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10 17:20:23 Warsi +0530 7 Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sagar Pur, he gave beatings and intentionally tried to strangulate his wife W.Constable Gulab Kumari Meena with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that if he by that act had caused the death of Gulab Kumari Meena, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. On account of the same, he had committed offence punishable under section 308 IPC.
Further, on the above said date, time and place, he caused small undisplaced fracture of lateral margin of left orbit with mild overlying soft tissue fullness injury to the complainant. On account of the same, he had committed offence punishable under section 325 IPC. Further, on the above said date, time and place, he wrongfully stopped the complainant from going out of the house and also threatened with dire consequences including her death. On account of the same, he had committed offence punishable under section 341/342/506 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 7 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:20:31 Warsi +0530 8
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the following witnesses:
S. No. Name of PW Exhibit Nature of document
1. PW-1 Ex.PW1/A Arrest memo of HC Sandeep Ex.PW1/B accused, Kumar personal search memo of accused
2. PW-2 Ex.PW2/A Statement of HC Gulab Kumari Ex.PW2/B complainant, Meena site plan
3. PW-3 Ex.PW3/A GD No. 10A Sh. Ved Pal, Retired ASI
4. PW-4 Ex.PW4/A FIR, HC Bhagwan Ex.PW4/B endorsement on Sahay rukka
5. PW-5 Ex.PW5/A, Endorsement, Retd. ASI Yagaya Ex.PW5/B, duplicate MLC of Dutt Sharma Ex.PW5/C, injured, Ex.PW5/D, disclosure statement Ex.PW5/E, of accused, DD No. Ex.PW5/F, 20 dated 15.09.2019, State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 8 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:20:55 Warsi +0530 9 Ex.PW5/G, DD No. 52 dated and 17.09.2019, DD No. Ex.PW5/H 67B dated 06.09.2019, another complaint of complainant, Application addressed to HOD, Eye Department, Safdarjunj Hospital by IO/ASI Yagaya Dutt Sharma,
6. PW-6 ---- ----
Dr. Shaifali Khandpur
7. PW-7 ---- ----
Dr. Saanchal Sethi
8. PW-8 ---- ----
Dr. Rajesh Kohli
9. PW-9 Ex.PW9/A Report Dr. Nilesh Marmat
10. CW1 Ex.CW1/A Medical Certificate Dr. Rahul Saini, State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 9 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:21:05 +0530 10 (Ortho), MBBS
6. PW1 HC Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 11.11.2019, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as constable. On that day, he had joined the investigation of the present case with ASI Yag Dutt Sharma and on the day in the PS, IO/SI Yag Dutt Sharma arrested the accused Anil Kumar Meena in the present case. The arrest memo in this regard Ex.PW1/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/B. IO also interrogated the accused and also recorded his statement. He identified the accused in the court.
6.1. PW1 during his cross-examination deposed that accused was arrested between 11:00 am to 12:00 noon. The sister of the accused was informed about his arrest. As of now he did not remember her name. He denied suggestion that the accused was arrested in his presence.
7. PW2 HC Gulab Kumari Meena deposed that on 26.06.2019, she was residing at H. No. RZ-1073, Gali No. 5/8, State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 10 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:21:14 +0530 11 Main Sagarpur, Delhi, alongwith her husband Sh. Anil Kumar Meena. On that day, her husband came at home at about 2-2:30 pm after having liquor and he quarreled with her and thereafter he went from the house. He again came back to home around 7-8 pm and also brought a liquor bottle with him and started consuming the same and also started murmuring and forcing her to drink the liquor. At that time, she was watching cricket match on her mobile phone. When she refused to drink the liquor, he forcefully put the glass full of liquor in her mouth and he threw the said glass on her face. He also tore her shirt which she was wearing at that time. When she threatened him to lodge a police complaint and while she was moving out of the room, in the meantime, he suddenly locked the room from inside. Thereafter, he threw her on bed and sat over her and started strangulating her. He also put a knife on her neck and threatened to kill her, if she lodged a police complaint. When she started losing her breath, she requested him to leave her but he did not leave her and threatened that he will kill her. He also pressed her mouth so that she could not raise her voice and he also snatched her mobile State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 11 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:21:23 Warsi +0530 12 phone. When he was not leaving her, she bit his thumb and she somehow managed to come out from the room. Due to injuries on her head and eyes, she was not able to see property. When she reached the main gate of the house, in the meantime, accused again pulled her inside the bathroom and there he asked her to change her torn shirt. He also threatened her not to lodge a case against him. Thereafter, she got the main gate of the house opened by landlady. He followed her till PS Sagarpur. On the road to the PS, he pulled her again near the bus stop adjacent to PS Sagarpur and there he again threatened to kill her if she lodge a complaint and also slapped her twice. After threatening her, he returned back her mobile phone and ran away from there. She also made a call to ACP Radhe Shyam who is uncle (Tau Ji) of accused and told him about the incident and he advised her to make a call at 100 number. Then, she made a call at 100 number and PCR van reached there and took her to DDU hospital, local police from PS Sagarpur also came to the hospital at night. On next day, i.e. 27.06.2019, she was discharged from the hospital and she reached the PS. In the PS, she was made to sit till 04:00 State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 12 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10
17:21:32
Warsi +0530
13
pm without lodging her complaint. She was visiting PS everyday but her complaint was not lodged. Ultimately, on 02.07.2019, her complaint was taken and FIR was lodged after the intervention of DCP, South West. Her statement was recorded which is now Ex.PW2/A. IO prepared the site plan of the spot at her instance which is now Ex.PW2/B. She identified the accused in the court.
During the course of investigation, police did not seize the bottle of liquor, glass and her torn shirt.
7.1. PW2 during his cross-examination deposed that she joined Delhi Police in the year 2009. Her marriage took place in the year 2018 with accused. It was an arrange marriage. She gave birth to baby girl in the year 2020. She denied the suggestion that marital relations with accused were cordial. She did not call the accused on the date of incident. She did not remember on the date of incident, she was on official rest or she was on leave. It was a world cup cricket match which she was watching at the time of incident. One team was from the Pakistan. Complaint Ex.PW2/A is in his handwriting. It is correct that specific time of State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 13 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10 17:21:42 Warsi +0530 14 incident is not mentioned in her complaint. She did not know the brand and the size of the liquor bottle which accused was drinking. It is correct that accused poured glass full of liquor in her mouth. Voluntarily the accused also threw liquor glass on her face. The glass was of plastic. It is correct that in her complaint Ex.PW2/A she has not mentioned that the accused torn her T-
shirt which she was wearing at that time. Voluntarily she was nervous when her complaint was lodged and she could not state the said facts at that time. The accused used to fight with her from the beginning of their marriage. It is correct that only the present FIR is pending against the accused. It is correct that her complaint case under Domestic Violence Act was dismissed in default. The incident occurred on the 2nd floor of the house where they were residing on rent. The 2 nd floor comprised of one room, kitchen and bathroom. The landlord also resides on the different floor of the said house but he was not present in the house at the time of incident. She voluntarily stated that, the mother of landlord was present in the house. The police did not come to her house on the date of incident. Voluntarily she made the PCR call State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 14 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:21:54 +0530 15 from the Sagarpur bus stand. Then PCR took her to the hospital for MLC. On the next day IO visited her house. She had written in her initial complaint that accused threw her on the bed and started strangulating. It is further stated in his complaint that she in order to save herself bit his thumb. Witness confronted with her statement Ex.PW2/A where the fact of throwing her on the bed and biting his thumb is not mentioned.
7.2. Further, PW2 in cross examination deposed that it is correct that in her complaint Ex.PW2/A, she had not mentioned that accused again pulled her inside the bathroom and asked her to change her torn shirt. It is correct that in her examination-in-
chief recorded on 18.07.2022, she has stated that accused again pulled her inside the bathroom and asked her to change her torn shirt. Voluntarily she had wrongly stated so in her chief on 18.07.2022. She denied all the suggestions given by Ld. defence counsel.
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 15 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:22:05 Warsi +0530 16
8. PW3 Ved Pal, Retired ASI deposed that on 27.06.2019, he was posted at police station Sagarpur as ASI and was working as Duty officer from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 am. On that night, at 12:22 am, a PCR call regarding quarrel at Sagarpur bus stand was received and he recorded this message vide GD No. 10A and handed over to ASI Yagay Dutt for investigation. Copy of the same is Ex.PW3/A.
9. PW4 HC Bhagwan Sahay deposed that on 03.07.2019, he was posted at police station Sagarpur as Duty Officer from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 am. At about 12:00, midnight, IO/ASI Yagaya Dutt brought a rukka. On the basis of which he registered the FIR which is Ex.PW4/A, bearing his signature at point A. The endorsement was made by him on rukka which is Ex.PW4/B, bearing her signature at Point A. Thereafter, the investigation was marked to IO/ASI Yagaya Dutt. The documents were handed over to him. His certificate u/s 65B IEA regarding the computerized FIR is Ex.PW4/C, bearing his signature at Point A. State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 16 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:22:16 +0530 17
10. PW5 Retd. ASI Yagaya Dutt Sharma deposed that in the year 2019-20, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as ASI. On the intervening night of 26/27.06.2019, he was in emergency duty.
On receipt of DD No.10A regarding the incident of quarrel between husband and wife, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep reached the spot i.e. bus stand Sagarpur, Delhi where injured person did not met him and on inquiry, he came to know that PCR van had shifted the injured to the DDU hospital. Thereafter, they reached DDU hospital where injured Gulab Kumari W/o Anil Kumar Meena was found brought in the hospital. There was injury on the left eye of the victim and she stated that she was nervous and not in a position to give her statement. He collected the MLC of the injured. He kept the PCR call pending. Injured was referred for Safdarjung Hospital for CT Scan. Complainant gave her complaint dated 30.06.2019 in writing addressed to SHO, PS Sagarpur which is already Ex.PW2/A. Complaint was marked to him by SHO. He made his endorsement, Ex.PW5/A, bearing his signature at Point A and got the FIR registered. After registration of the FIR, he visited the spot and at the instance of the State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 17 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:22:29 +0530 18 complainant, he prepared the site plan which is already Ex.PW2/B, bearing his signature at Point B. Original MLC of victim prepared in DDU hospital was misplaced from the police station so he collected duplicate MLC from DDU hospital. Duplicate MLC of injured from DDU hospital bearing nature of injury is Ex.PW5/B. In search of accused Anil Kumar Meena, he visited his native place village Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, where his parents met him he apprised them about the present case. Accused was not found present at his house. Since accused was not joining investigation, he obtained his NBWs from the concerned court. On 11.11.2019, accused came to the PS, he interrogated him and thereafter arrested him vide Memo Ex.PW1/A and conducted his personal search. Accused admitted his involvement and got recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/C. 10.1. Further, PW5 deposed that on 25.11.2019, he alongwith victim Gulab Kumari Meena reached Safdarjung Hospital. He obtained opinion of the concerned doctor regarding nature of State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 18 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10 17:22:40 Warsi +0530 19 injury sustained by victim on her eye. It was opined as simple injury. He collected necessary documents including DD entries pertaining to investigation of present case and placed on the file and on completion of the investigation he prepared chargesheet and filed it before the concerned court. Copy of DD no. 20 dated 15.09.2019, DD no. 52 dated 17.09.2019 and DD no. 67B dated 06.09.2019 are Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F, respectively. Victim had given another complaint in writing which was received on 12.07.2019 in the PS and the same is Ex.PW5/G alongwith photocopy of documents pertaining to her medical. Her application addressed to HoD, Eye Department, Safdarjung Hospital for obtaining nature of injury sustained by victim. Concerned doctor had opined nature of injury on his application itself. The same is Ex.PW5/H bearing his signature at point A. Identity of accused Anil Kumar Meena was not disputed by his counsel.
10.2. PW5 during his cross-examination deposed that he alongwith Ct. Sandeep left the PS from motorcycle. At bus stand, State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 19 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:22:50 +0530 20 on inquiry, he came to know that PCR has already taken the injured to DDU hospital but he did not write the name of the public persons from whom he inquired. First he visited the house of Gulab Kumari Meena and thereafter, he visited the bus stand. When he visited the house of accused, he came to know from the landlord regarding the quarrel. The victim was residing on the first floor. He did not remember as to how many rooms were in the first floor. On the night when he visited the hospital, the victim was not in the position to give her statement as her left eye was severely injured. It is correct that when he first visited the house of accused, he did not seize any liquor bottle. Voluntarily said but the liquor bottle was lying on the floor. During investigation, he also visited the native place of accused at Rajasthan. He recorded the disclosure of the accused in the PS. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the house of accused. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the fair investigation in the present case.
11. PW6 Dr. Shaifali Khandpur deposed that she has been State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 20 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:22:59 +0530 21 working in the DDU hospital since February 2020. She has worked with Dr. Rakesh Verma the then secondary DNB of the said hospital. He had seen him writing and signing the documents in his official course of duties and due to that reason she can identify his handwriting and signatures, if shown to her. As per the record of the hospital, Dr. Rakesh Verma has already left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not available in the hospital. He has been authorized by their HOD to depose before this Hon'ble Court. She has seen MLC of the patient Gulab Kumari vide MLC No. 5591/19 which is already Ex.PW5/B. On the said MLC, the noting from Point C to C1 and D to D1 are in the handwriting of Dr. Rakesh Verma bearing his signatures at Point E and F. As per available record, the nature of injury given by Dr. Rakesh Verma as 'simple injury'.
12. PW7 Dr. Saanchal Sethi deposed that he is working in Safdarjung hospital since December 2017 as SMO. On 25.11.2019, he received an application from the IO to give an opinion on MLC No. 5591/19, DDO Hospital of patient namely State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 21 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:23:08 +0530 22 Gulab Kumari Meena. IO and the patient were also produced before him. He had gone through with the MLC of the patient which is already Ex.PW5/B and the OPD records and form an opinion as simple injury. His opinion is already Ex.PW5/H, in red circled area, bearing his signature at Point A. 12.1. PW7 during his cross-examination deposed that the MLC was not prepared by him as the same was prepared in DDU Hospital. It is wrong to suggest that he had not go through the MLC and the documents before giving an opinion. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
13. PW8 Dr. Rajesh Kohli deposed that he is working in DDU hospital since December 2001 as GDMO. In 2019, he was the HOD of Accident and Emergency Department in the above said hospital. During his tenure, he worked with Dr. Aman Rathi as he was Jr. Resident. He is well acquainted with his hand writings and signatures as he worked with him in the usual course of my State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 22 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:23:18 +0530 23 work. He identify his signatures on the MLC already Ex.PW5/B of patient namely Gulab at Point A.
14. PW9 Dr. Nilesh Marmat deposed that on 02.07.2019, he was working as a Consultant Radiologist, Care Eye Centre and Dignostics D- Block, Janakpuri. On that day one Mrs. Gulab Kumari Meena came to their above stated centre for CT SCAN of Orbit. On the same day CT SCAN of orbit was conducted under his supervision and after CT SCAN, he found an undisplaced fracture of lateral margin of left orbit with mild overlying soft tissue fullness. His report is exhibited as Ex.PW9/A, herein his signature at point A. 14.1. PW9 during his cross-examination deposed that the above stated patient was not personally known to him. He was not having any knowledge about registration of any criminal case regarding the said patient. He was also not having any knowledge that the above stated patient had already got any medical treatment from any hospital. The said patient came to their centre State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 23 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:23:27 Warsi +0530 24 at about 10:00 am as mentioned in Ex.PW-9/A at heading collection time. He denied the suggestion that he prepared the above stated report on the saying of Mrs. Gulab Kumari Meena and no fracture was found on her CT SCAN of orbit.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
15. After completion of prosecution evidence, all incriminating material as appearing in the evidence was put to the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded innocence and stated that he is falsely implicated in the present case. It is also stated that in the morning of 26.06.2019 he was called from Jaipur to Delhi by his wife / complainant and she asked him to leave his family and live with her as she was drunk, she said, she drank with her own money and he also live on her mercy. She tore her shirt and threatened to implicate him in false case as she is in police. On 10.11.2019 his wife called him to the matrimonial house at Delhi from Jaipur to settle the issues and he was not having any knowledge of any FIR and on 11.11.2019 his State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 24 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Warsi Ali Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals 2026.03.10 Warsi 17:23:43 +0530 25 wife asked him to go to PS Sagarpur and she is coming after an hour. Thereafter, he was arrested in the PS itself without any interrogation. It is also stated that his wife is a habitual complainant and being in the police managed the entire case and falsely implicated him in the present case as all the witnesses are police officials.
ARGUMENTS
16. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that the complainant victim Gulab Kumari Meena has been victim of violence by her husband and the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused / her husband after consumption of liquor forced her to drink liquor and tore her shirt and strangulate her and threatened by putting knife on her neck, also locked the door so that she cannot move, and in the incident victim has suffered injuries on her head and eyes and her injuries has been corroborated on vital part by the medical documents State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 25 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:23:58 Warsi +0530 26 and witnesses and the accused has committed offence u/s 308/325/341/342/506 of IPC.
17. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that complainant is a police official and due to family disputes/ enemity between husband and wife she has misused her position to lodge false case against the accused. Her statements are not corroborated by the statements of IO and other prosecution witnesses. It cannot be believed that police officials will not register FIR of a person belong to their own department. The reason for delay in FIR was not explained by the prosecution and accused was called by the complainant wife to their matrimonial house on 10.11.2019 and he was sent to the police station on the second day and he got arrested on 11.11.2019, while he has no clue that his wife in collusion with other police officials misused her position and made the accused arrested in a false and bogus case as she has enemity with husband over matrimonial disputes. The injuries were not corroborated as no explanation for misplacement of original MLC and delay in CT Scan or their State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 26 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Warsi Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi 2026.03.10 17:24:08 +0530 27 nature that any of the injury is dangerous to life is not given by the prosecution, while the injuries can be self inflicted as they are simple in nature. There are material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the complainant and IO as well as other witnesses. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused being victim of conspiracy is entitled for acquittal.
APPRECIATION & ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE:
(Evidence has to be examined whether the alleged facts are proved, disproved or not proved on the anvil of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt).
ANALYSIS AND FINDING QUA OFFENCE U/S 308 IPC, 325, 341, 342 AND 506 IPC:
18. To determine whether an act falls within the ambit of Section 308 IPC, the essential considerations to be proved by State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 27 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:24:18 +0530 28 the prosecution are:
(1) Nature of the act;
(2) The intention or knowledge of the person;
(3) The circumstances under which the act is done;
(4) If by that act death is caused he would be guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
19. So, for the purpose of Section 308 IPC, what is material is intention or knowledge and not the consequences of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. What the court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge that such bodily injury is likely to cause death or by such act he is likely to cause death.
20. Intention and knowledge may also be gathered from the nature of injuries, weapon of offence used and other attending circumstances of the incident.
21. With these principles of law, this court now proceed to State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 28 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:24:26 Warsi +0530 29 examine the case at hand whether the prosecution has successfully proved the essential ingredients of Section 308 IPC against the accused.
22. In the testimony of PW2 HC Gulab Kumari Meena, the complainant/injured, it is deposed that she was residing alongwith her husband / accused and on 26.06.2019, her husband came at home near about 02:30 PM after consuming liquor he quarreled with her and went from the house, came back at around 07-08:00 PM with bottle of liquor, started consuming the same and after murmuring, forced her to drink the liquor. She refused to drink the liquor. He forcefully put glass of liquor in her mouth and threw the glass on her face. Tore her shirt and when she threatened him to lodge a police complaint and moving out of the room, accused locked the room from inside, threw her on the bed and sat over her and started strangulating her. Accused put a knife on her neck and threaten her to kill and she started loosing her breathe. She requested accused to leave her but the accused did not leave her and threatened that he will kill her. As the State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 29 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:24:34 Warsi +0530 30 accused was not leaving her, she bite his thumb and somehow managed to come out from the room. Due to injuries on her head and eyes she was not able to see properly and accused pulled her again inside the bathroom and asked her to change the torn shirt. Thereafter, she got the main gate of the house opened by landlady. The accused followed her till PS Sagarpur and pulled her again near the bus stop and threatened her to kill, if she lodged a complaint, and also slapped her twice. After threatening her, he returned back her mobile phone and ran away from there. Her complaint was taken and FIR was lodged after the intervention of DCP, South West as her complaint was not lodged despite visiting the police station. Her statement was recorded, the same is Ex.PW2/A. 22.1. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that complaint Ex.PW2/A is in her handwriting and specific time of incident is not mentioned in her complaint. She has also admitted that she has not mentioned in the complaint that the accused torn her t-
shirt. She also stated that she was nervous when the complaint State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 30 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.10
17:24:44
Warsi +0530
31
was lodged and she could not state the said facts at that time. She also admitted that her complaint case under domestic violence act was dismissed in default. She also stated that she made the PCR call from Sagarpur Bus Stand and PCR took her to the hospital for MLC and on the next day IO visited her house. It is also relevant to mention here that the fact of throwing her on the bed and biting the thumb of accused is not mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW2/A. She has also admitted that in her complaint Ex.PW2/A she had not mentioned that accused again pulled her inside the bathroom and asked her to change her torn shirt. She also admitted that she had wrongly stated so in her examination-in-chief.
23. In the testimony of ,PW3 Ved Pal, Retired ASI, he deposed that on 27.06.2019 working as duty officer and at 12:22 am a PCR call regarding quarrel at Sagarpur bus stand was received and he recorded this message vide GD No. 10 A and handed over to ASI Yagyadutt Sharma for investigation.
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 31 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:24:52 Warsi +0530 32 23.1 In the testimony of IO, PW-5 Retd. SI Yagyadutt Sharma, he stated that on 26/27.06.2019 when he reached the spot with regard to DD No. 10A regarding the incident of quarrel between husband and wife i.e. bus stand Sagarpur, injured person did not met him and he came to know that PCR Van had shifted the injured to DDU Hospital and after reaching DDU hospital, injured Gulab Kumari was found brought in the hospital and there was injury on the left eye of the victim and she stated she is nervous and not in a position to give her statement and complainant gave her complaint dated 30.06.2019 in writing addressed to SHO, PS Sagarpur i.e. Ex.PW2/A and after registration of FIR he visited the spot. He also stated that original MLC of victim prepared in DDU hospital was misplaced from the police station, so he collected duplicate MLC from DDU hospital. Duplicate MLC of injured from DDU hospital bearing nature of injury was Ex.PW5/B.
24. From aforesaid evidence it is clear that there is delay of near about 4 days from the date of incident i.e. 26/27.06.2019 till State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 32 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.10
17:25:01
Warsi +0530
33
filing of the complaint i.e.30.06.2019. While information was received and recorded promptly Vide GD No. 10 A and investigation was also promptly handed over to ASI Yagyadutt Sharma and without any delay he reached DDU Hospital.
However complainant refused to give her statement as she was nervous and not in a position to give her statement. In cross examination complainant stated that on the next day IO visited her house. Hence, She can also give her statement to the IO on second day when he visited her house. But complaint was made in writing after 4 days of the incident and due to this unexplained delay her statement has to be carefully examined as FIR can be afterthought one due to enemity. Before proceeding further with regard to after thought and delayed FIR it is prudent to consider the position of law as laid down in, State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Punati Ramulu And Others on 19 February, 1993 AIR1993SC2644, 1993CRILJ3684, 1994SUPP(1)SCC590:
"..... Once we find that the investigating officer has deliberately failed to record the first information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 33 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:25:10 Warsi +0530 34 as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stooped to fabricate evidence and create false clues. Though we agree that mere relationship of the witnesses PW 3 and PW 4, the children of the deceased or of PW 1 and PW 2 who are also related to the deceased, by itself is not enough to discard their testimony and that the relationship or the partisan nature of the evidence only puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the evidence more carefully, we find that in this case when the bona fides of the investigation has been successfully assailed, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of these witnesses either in the absence of strong corroborative evidence of a clinching nature, which is found wanting in this case."
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972, 1973 AIR 501, 1972 SCR (3) 622, AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 501:
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 34 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:25:20 +0530 35 "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 lodging the first in- formation 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. In the present case, Kopia, daughter-in-law of Madhandi deceased, State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 35 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:25:28 +0530 36 according to the prosecution case, was present when the accused made murderous assault on the deceased. Valanjiaraju, stepson of the deceased, is also alleged to have arrived near the scene of occurrence on being told by Kopia. Neither of them, nor any other villager, who is stated to have been told about the occurrence by Valanjiaraju and Kopia, made any report at the police station for more than 20 hours after the occurrence, even though the police station is only two miles from the place of occurrence. The said circumstance, in our opinion, would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of those two witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused- appellant upon it."
25. After close scrutiny, appreciation and analyzing the testimony of PW2 HC Gulab Kumari Meena and PW5, retired SI Yagaya Dutt Sharma i.e. IO of the present case. The complainant has failed to explain the cause of delay i.e. 4 days in filing the complaint as perusal of Ex.PW4/A i.e. FIR in point No. State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 36 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:25:38 +0530 37 8 no delay in FIR is shown while the date of incident is 26.06.2019 at 23:30 hours and date of information received at PS is 02.07.2019 at 23:53 hours and date of registration of FIR is 03.07.2019. In the testimony of PW 4 HC Bhagwan Sahay who registered the FIR i.e. Ex.PW4/A he has deposed that n 03.07.2019 at about 12:00 midnight, IO/ASI retired SI Yagaya Dutt brought a rukka and in the testimony of PW5, ASI Yagaya Dutt Sharma, He deposed that on the night of incident when he reached DDU Hospital he found Gulab Kumari w/o Anil Kumar Meena in the hospital and the victim has injury on the left eye and she stated that she is nervous and not in a position to give her statement. Further, in cross examination he deposed that he first visited the house of Gulab Kumari Meena and thereafter, he visited the bus stand and when he visited the house of the accused he came to know from the landlord regarding the quarrel and on the night when he visited the hospital, the victim was not in the position to give her statement as her left eye was severely injured. However, in contradiction PW2 injured / complainant HC Gulab Kumari Meena has stated that she was taken to the State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 37 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally signed Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Zishan Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Warsi 2026.03.10 17:25:49 +0530 38 DDU hospital by PCR Van and local police from PS Sagarpur was also came to the hospital at night. On the next date i.e. 27.06.2019, she was discharged from the hospital and she reached the PS. In the PS, she was made to sit till 4:00 pm without lodging her complaint and she was visiting PS every day but her complaint was not lodged. Ultimately, on 02.07.2019, her complaint was taken and FIR was lodged after the intervention of DCP, South West and her statement were recorded as Ex.PW2/A bearing her signature.
26. On careful examination of Ex.PW2/A it is the complaint written by injured complainant Gulab Kumari Meena addressed to SHO PS Sagarpur in writing. On the basis of which the rukka was prepared. The complaint is dated 30.06.2019, on the other hand the incident is dated 26/27.06.2019. The statement of the injured complainant HC Gulab Kumari Meena does not inspire confidence of this court as she stated that her complaint was not registered and she used to wait in the PS without lodging her complaint and due to intervention of DCP her complaint was State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 38 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi 2026.03.10 17:25:59 +0530 39 registered. IO of the present case i.e. PW5 retired SI Yagaya Dutt Sharma has deposed that he went and meet the injured complainant HC Gulab Kumari Meena on the date of incident itself but she refused to give her statement. The reason for delay remained unexplained as the concerned DCP who helped the injured complainant HC Gulab Kumari Meena in registration of the FIR / complaint was not produced by the prosecution as a witness to explain the cause of delay and due to his intervention FIR was registered. Thus the testimony of the PW2 HC Gulab Kumari Meena and PW5 retired SI Yagaya Dutt Sharma are materially in contradiction on the aspect of cause of delay in lodging the FIR as per IO testimony and other witnesses evidence on record on receiving the information , investigation was done promptly, on the other hand due to refusal of complainant to made her statement the delay in registration of FIR has occurred.
27. The testimony of PW2 HC Gulab Kumari Meena is full of contradictions, omissions and discrepancies as in her deposition State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 39 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Warsi Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi 2026.03.10 17:26:08 +0530 40 before the court she stated that the accused tore her shirt and the accused again pull her inside the bathroom and there asked her to change her torn shirt. While in cross examination she admitted that she has wrongly stated so in her chief examination. In her chief examination she also deposed that accused threw her on bed and sit over her and started strangulating her and she has bit the thumb of the accused. However, the same is not written by her in the complaint i.e. Ex.PW2/A. In her cross examination with regard to the fact of torn her T-shirt. She voluntarily stated that she was nervous when her complaint was lodged and she could not stated the said facts at that time. Thus, considering the discrepancies and the reason of nervousness while her complaint Ex.PW2/A was written by her own and the same is filed after four days of the date of incident. Casts a doubt on the truthfulness of complainant and Impeaches her credibility as she herself is a police officer and under the effect of nervousness either before the court or while presenting written complaint omitted material facts. It can not be lost sight that, the accused in his statement has took the defense that complainant tore her shirt State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 40 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10 17:26:18 Warsi +0530 41 and threaten to implicate him in false case and this can be the reason complainant modified her statement in the court to nullify the defense of the accused.
28. With regard to injuries to injured complainant Gulab Kumari Meena as reflected from MLC No. 5591/19 i.e. Ex.PW5/B (which is a photocopy / duplicate as the original was misplaced by the prosecution). The nature of injury was simple as stated by PW6 Dr. Shaifali Khandpur, eye specialist and PW7 Dr. Saanchal Sethi, Eye Department and PW6 Dr. Shaifali Khandpur, eye specialist has identified the noting from D to D1 on the MLC No. 5591/19 in the handwriting of Dr. Rakesh Verma and on careful perusal of noting D to D1 on MLC i.e. Ex.PW5/B the following noting is there ( which clears that no bony injury was seen as per X-ray) the same is reproduced as follows:
"As per X-ray No. 5265 dated 27.06.2019 reported by Dr. Yasir (SR) Radiology reveals no fresh bony injury seen in (L) orbit.
Suggestive of simple injury."
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 41 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:26:27 Warsi +0530 42 While as per the testimony of PW9 Dr. Nilesh Marmat he found an undisplaced fracture of lateral margin of left orbit with mild overlying soft tissue fullness and the CT Scan report Ex.PW9/A is dated 02.07.2019 which is done after 5 days of the incident and the same is contradictory to opinion given in MLC, ExPW 5/B as no fresh bony injury was there on 27.06.2019. It is also important to consider here that the original MLC is not brought on record as the same is stated by PW5 retired ASI Yagaya Dutt Sharma as the original MLC of victim prepared in DDU hospital was misplaced from the PS so he collected duplicate MLC from DDU hospital and on perusal of report Ex.PW9/A i.e. CT scan of orbit the same is dated 02.07.2019 i.e. after 05 days of the date of incident and no explanation is given for delay in the examination of the injured complainant Gulab Kumari Meena or any previous medical treatment document or X-ray report to prove the medical history of the injury or that she suffered injuries on the date of incident and not thereafter. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant has been hospitalized for a particular period or not. And the State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 42 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:26:37 +0530 43 complainant was discharged on 27.06.2019 itself and she herself stated that she was waiting at the PS on the second day from the date of incident to get her complaint registered. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim has suffered the injury in the alleged incident as no original MLC was produced or reason for its misplacement or treatment history is produced to corroborate the injury and delayed examination after 5 days i.e. On 02.07.2019 remained unexplained.
29. In the testimony of PW2 Gulab Kumari Meena in cross examination she admitted that her complaint case under Domestic Violence Act was dismissed in default. Thus this fact cannot be lost sight that there were matrimonial dispute between the complainant and accused. There exists strong motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. Further, landlady which can be an important eye witness was also not produced by the prosecution in evidence so that the ocular testimony of complainant get corroborated. Thus, except for the State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 43 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:26:47 Warsi +0530 44 ocular testimony of complainant which is doubtful no reliable evidence is on record to substantiate her evidence as medical evidence was doubtful.
30. Now, it is also relevant to consider here that complainant/ injured PW-2 HC Gulab Kumari Meena injury is shown to be simple. It is necessary to discuss the relevant provisions of law to Grievous hurt and hurt and their applicability to the case at hand. The relevant provisions are Section: 322, 320 and 325 of IPC.
30.1 Section 322 IPC provides for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt which is a punishable offence u/s 325 IPC. It reads as under:
"322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.--Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt".
Explanation.--A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 44 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Date:
Ali Warsi 2026.03.10 17:26:58 +0530 45 voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind."
30.2. "Grievous hurt" is defined in section 320 IPC in the following manner:
"Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are desig- nated as "grievous":--
(First) -- Emasculation.
(Secondly) --Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. (Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly) --Privation of any member or joint. (Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the pow- ers of any member or joint.
(Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. (Seventhly) --Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. (Eighthly) --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."
30.3. On perusal of the provision of section 322 IPC it can be inferred that, the person causing hurt must have the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt and the hurt which is caused in State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 45 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:27:06 +0530 46 consequence must also be grievous in nature as defined in section 320 IPC. It is not sufficient that the hurt which is caused is "grievous" if there is no prior intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt.
30.4. It is also relevant to mention here Section 325 of IPC which reads as:-
"325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous 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 fine."
31. Thus on joint reading of section 320, section 322, section 325 IPC it becomes clear that if the grievous hurt is caused to the victim due to the act of assailant, he can be convicted for causing grievous hurt , only if he either intended to cause grievous hurt or had the knowledge, while doing the said act, that grievous hurt could be ordinarily caused. If either the intention or State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 46 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:27:16 +0530 47 knowledge is missing then the accused cannot be convicted u/s 325 IPC even if grievous hurt is caused due to his act. Now, considering the case at hand the injuries were not proved either to be of the nature of grievous in nature as the nature of injury was shown to be simple and the fracture which was shown via Ex.PW9/A i.e. after five days of incident without any explanation for delay or corroborating medical evidence as discussed in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment.
32. Thus considering the material contradictions, ommissions and discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses and besides that, the nature of injuries, as reflected from the MLC, simple in nature; complainant was discharged on the very same day after medical treatment; and, none of the injury is inflicted on the vital parts of the body,non explanation of delay in lodging FIR as well as medical examination qua ExPW 9/A, non examination of independent public witness. The essential ingredients to make out a case of attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder as well as voluntarily causing grievous hurt are not State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 47 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:27:24 +0530 48 proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
33. With regard to charge under Section 341/342 IPC. It is relevant to reproduce the said sections:
"Section 341 Punishment for wrongful restraint.-- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 342 Punishment for wrongful confinement.-- Whoever wrongfully confines any person 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."
34. On perusal of Section 341 and 342 IPC for conviction of the accused,The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has either unlawfully restrained or confined the complainant. However, as discussed in the forgoing State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 48 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:27:40 +0530 49 paras of this judgment that there are material contradictions and ommissions in the testimony of PW2 HC Gulab Kumari Meena due to which her credibility got impeached. For the purpose of proving either wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement, the best witness can be landlady who can narrate or corroborate the incident as stated by the complainant. However, no independent eye witness is brought into prosecution evidence by the prosecution except for complainant / injured while her testimony is doubtful. Thus, in absence of credible evidence of criminal restraint or criminal confinement the offence u/s 341/342 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
35. With regard to charge under Section 506 IPC. It is relevant to reproduce section 503 and 506 IPC the said section:
"Section 503 Criminal intimidation --Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 49 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.10
17:27:52
Warsi +0530
50
to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
"Section 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation
--Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;/If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 50 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi 2026.03.10 17:28:18 +0530 51
36. As can be seen, the essential ingredients for the purpose of criminal intimidation involves threatening a person to cause alarm or force him/her to act against his/her will. The key ingredients are threat to a person reputation, or property, intended to cause fear, alarm, or to compel someone to omit/ commit a legal act and the term threatening a person means the offender must threaten another person with injury i.e. of victim person, reputation or property and the intention to cause alarm, fear or apprehension in the mind of the person threatened and the threatened person must feel forced to comply to avoid the consequences of the threat.
37. The conjoint reading of Section 503 and 506 IPC reflects that threatening is one of the most important ingredients. However, as held in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment the testimony of PW2 HC Gulab Kumari Meena is not found to be credit worthy and suffering from omissions, material contradictions and discrepancies. Also her statement upto the extent that accused threw her on the bed and then threatened her State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 51 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10 17:28:26 Warsi +0530 52 is a material contradiction from her written complaint Ex.PW 2/A. Hence, the threat alleged to be given by the accused to the complainant / victim is not substantiated by the evidence laid by prosecution and the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.
38. Lastly it is also to be considered that there are matrimonial disputes prevailing between Accused and the complainant as Accused has took the defense that to resolve the matrimonial issues complainant called him and falsely implicated him in the present case as complainant herself being the Police official and she manage the whole case with the motive of enemity. In her cross examination complainant wife has admitted the fact that her complaint case under domestic violence act was dismissed. Thus, it is apparent that there is animosity between the complainant and the accused and there is a possibility that on the basis of afterthought motive to settle scores present FIR after 4 days of alleged incident is filed and in the present case complainant is an interested witness due to prior enmity and no independent and State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 52 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:28:43 +0530 53 reliable corroboration was found substantiating the allegations against the accused and there is a possibility of false implication of the accused. As enmity is double edged sword and when two views are possible then it is settled law that view favorable to the accused has to be adopted and benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. As also held by The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam @ Imran v State of Madhya Pradesh,Judgement Date: 27 March 2025, 2025 INSC 403 | 2025 SCO.LR 3(4)[18] :
" 22.It is a settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. From the nature of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the possibility of the present appellant being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt."
39. For accused Anil Kumar Meena as discussed in the foregoing paras of this judgment, the essential ingredients to State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 53 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10 17:29:05 Warsi +0530 54 make out a case of an attempt to commit culpable homicide or to commit the same are completely missing in the case at hand also the prosecution has failed to establish that voluntarily grievous hurt is caused to the complainant or she was confined or restrained or threatened by the accused and after analysing and appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution it cannot be established that accused namely Anil Kumar Meena had assaulted the victim or restrained / confined or threatened the complainant. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused Anil Kumar Meena beyond reasonable doubt and he is hereby acquitted for the charge under Section 308/325/341/342/506 IPC.
CONCLUSION The accused Anil Kumar Meena is acquitted for all the offences in the present case.
The bail bonds of accused Anil Kumar Meena are cancelled and surety is discharged.
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 54 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:29:17 +0530 55 Case property, if any, is confiscated to state be disposed off as per rules after period of appeal and in case of appeal, as per the direction of Hon'ble Appellate Court.
Syed Digitally
signed by
Zishan Syed Zishan
Ali Warsi
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Ali Date:
2026.03.10
COURT ON 10th March 2026 Warsi 17:29:27
+0530
(SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/10.03.2026
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 55 of 61
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals 56
(i) Chart for witnesses examined Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No.
1. Sandeep Kumar Head Constable, participated in investigation
2. Gulab Kumari Meena Complainant / injured eye witness
3. Ved Pal Retired ASI, Duty Officer
4. Bhagwan Sahay Head Constable, Duty Officer
5. Yagaya Dutt Sharma Retired ASI, Investigating Officer
6. Dr. Shaifali Khandpur Identified handwriting of Dr. Rakesh Verma on MLC of injured Gulab Kumari
7. Dr. Saanchal Sethi His opinion on MLC No. 5591/19 of patient namely Gulab Kumari State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 56 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:30:12 +0530 57 Meena
8. Dr. Rajesh Kohli He identified the signature of Dr. Aman Rathi on MLC
9. Dr. Nilesh Marmat Report of CT Scan Ex.PW9/A CW1. Dr. Rahul Saini, (Ortho), Medical Certificate MBBS State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 57 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 17:30:22 Warsi +0530 58
(ii) Chart for exhibited documents Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by / Attested No. by
1. Ex.PW1/A, Arrest memo of PW-1, HC Sandeep accused, Kumar Ex.PW1/B, personal search memo of accused
2. Ex.PW2/A, Statement of PW-2, HC Gulab complainant, Kumari Meena Ex.PW2/B, site plan
3. Ex.PW3/A, GD No. 10A PW-3, Sh. Ved Pal, Retired ASI
4. Ex.PW4/A, FIR PW-4, HC Bhagwan Ex.PW4/B, Endorsement Sahay Ex.PW4/C, Certificate u/s 65B IEA
5. Ex.PW5/A, Endorsement, PW-5, Retd. ASI Ex.PW5/B, Duplicate MLC of Yagaya Dutt injured, Sharma Ex.PW5/C, disclosure statement of accused, Ex.PW5/D, DD No. 20 dated State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 58 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10 17:30:33 Warsi +0530 59 15.09.2019, Ex.PW5/E, DD No. 52 dated 17.09.2019, Ex.PW5/F, DD No. 67B dated 06.09.2019, Ex.PW5/G, Another complaint of complainant, and Ex.PW5/H, Application addressed to HOD, Eye Department, Safdarjunj Hospital by IO/ASI Yagaya Dutt Sharma,
6. ---- PW-6, Dr. Shaifali Khandpur
7. ---- PW-7, Dr. Saanchal Sethi
8. ---- PW-8, Dr. Rajesh Kohli
9. Ex.PW9/A, Report of CT Scan PW-9, Dr. Nilesh Marmat State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 59 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali 2026.03.10 17:30:44 Warsi +0530 60
(iii) Chart for material objects / muddamals Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by / Object No. Attested by
1. ---- PW-1, HC Sandeep Kumar
2. ---- PW-2, HC Gulab Kumari Meena
3. ---- PW-3, Sh. Ved Pal, Retired ASI
4. ---- PW-4, HC Bhagwan Sahay
5. ---- PW-5, Retd. ASI Yagaya Dutt Sharma
6. ---- PW-6, Dr. Shaifali Khandpur
7. ---- PW-7, Dr. Saanchal Sethi
8. ---- PW-8, Dr. Rajesh Kohli State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 60 of 61 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Digitally signed by Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.10 Warsi 17:30:57 +0530 61
9. ---- PW-9, Dr. Nilesh Marmat Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.10
17:31:07
Warsi +0530
(SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/10.03.2026
State Vs. Anil Kumar Meena Page no. 61 of 61
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals