Delhi District Court
State vs Jogesh Choudhary Etc on 18 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA, DISTRICT
JUDGE-04 (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, DELHI:
EARLIER POSTED AS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-001694/2017
SC No. 138/2017
FIR No. 209/2016
PS: Khyala
U/s. 308/323/34 of the IPC
In the matter of:
State
(NCT of Delhi)
Versus
1. Jogesh Chaudhary
S/o Shri Badri Chaudhary
R/o B-3/963, 12.5 Sq. Yrd.,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
2. Premlata
S/o Shri Jogesh Chaudhary
R/o B-3/963, 12.5 Sq. Yrd.,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi ...........Accused Persons
Date of Institution : 27.02.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment : 13.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026
Decision : Convicted
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 1 of 33
FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata have faced trial in the present case for the commission of offences punishable under sections 308/323/34 of the IPC.
Factual Background
2. The version of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2016 at about 07:45 am at B-3/836, 12.5 Sq. Yards Street, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, the accused Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata, approached the victim Smt. Babita and her husband Sh. Shailender Chaudhary (complainant) and accused Premlata pressurized Smt. Babita to withdraw a criminal case previously lodged by her against accused Jogesh Chaudhary and certain others. Upon the victim's unequivocal refusal to accede to such a demand, the accused Premlata, forcibly pushed Smt. Babita to the ground and thereafter inflicted fist and kick blows upon her person. When the complainant Shailender Chaudhary endeavoured to shield and rescue his wife from the assault, the accused Jogesh Chaudhary brought a danda and assaulted both the complainant Shailender Chaudhary and victim Babita with the said danda. The complainant called the PCR at 100 number and the PCR van took the complainant and his wife to the hospital. The present FIR was registered on 28.04.2016 on the statement of the complainant. The injuries suffered by the complainant were opined to be simple in nature and those suffered by his wife/ victim Babita were opined to be grievous in nature. After State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 2 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata for the offences punishable under sections 308/323/34 of the IPC.
Charge
3. On consideration of the entire material on record, charges were framed against both the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 308/323/34 of the IPC, to which the accused persons pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
4. The prosecution led evidence and examined 07 witnesses, mentioned hereunder, in all to bring home the charges against the accused persons:
S. no. Name of Witness Nature of Evidence
PW1 Sh. Shailender Complainant/ Injured [has proved his
Chaudhary statement/ complaint Ex. PW1/A]
PW2 Smt. Babita Victim/ Injured
PW3 ASI Shanti Swaroop Duty Officer [has proved FIR no.
209/2016 PS Khyala (Ex. PW-3/B)
and other related documents Ex.
PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/C]
PW4 SI Ravi Dutt Duty Officer [has proved the earlier
(Retired) FIR No. 737/2014 PS Khyala lodged
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 3 of 33
FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala
by the victim Babita as Ex. PW 4/A]
PW5 ASI Birender Singh In-charge of PCR Van
PW6 HC Ravinder Police Official who accompanied the
IO
PW7 SI (then ASI) IO of the case [has proved site plan
Satyaveer Singh Ex. PW-7/A and arrest memos Ex.
PW-7/B and Ex. PW-7/C]
5. PW1 Shri Shailender Chaudhary deposed that he is a rickshaw puller and he had filed a case of robbery and rape of his wife namely Babita against accused Jogesh Chaudhary on 08.09.2013. PW1 further deposed that on 27.04.2016 at about 7.45 AM he along with his wife Babita was coming back to their house after leaving their daughter Kanchan at school and when they reached near their house, accused Premlata started insisting his wife to withdraw the case against them otherwise, the accused persons will kill them. PW1 further deposed that accused Premlata caught hold of the hair of his wife and pulled her down on the ground and started beating her with fists and legs. PW1 further deposed that accused Jogesh Chaudhary came out of his house holding two dandas and he handed over one danda to accused Premlata and thereafter both the accused persons started beating them with dandas. PW1 further deposed that he received injuries on his head, hand and his leg. PW1 further deposed that his shoulder got fractured and his left leg was also fractured and that his wife received injuries on her chin and State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 4 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala three injuries on her head. PW1 further deposed that he and his wife became unconscious and they regained consciousness after half an hour and he called 100 number 100. PW1 further deposed that the PCR van arrived at the spot and took him and his wife to Guru Govind Hospital. Police arrived at the hospital; however, they were not in proper senses. PW1 further deposed that he along with his wife were referred to Deen Dayal Hospital and they both got discharged from the hospital in the evening hours. PW1 further deposed that on 28.04.2016, he went to PS Khyala and gave his statement to the police which is Ex. PW1/A and he had shown the place of the incident and the police prepared the site plan.
6. PW2 Smt. Babita deposed that her husband is a rickshaw puller and he had made a complaint. PW2 further deposed that on 27.04.2016 at about 7.45 AM she was coming back after leaving her daughter Kanchan at school and she saw that accused Premlata and Jogesh were standing in the Gali. PW2 further deposed that she was told by Premlata to withdraw the case of rape and robbery otherwise, the accused will kill them. PW2 further deposed that she refused to do so and accused Premlata thereafter pulled her hair and pulled her down on the ground. Thereafter accused Premlata started beating her with fist and kick blows. PW2 further deposed that her husband intervened to save her and Jogesh came there armed with a danda and gave a blow on head of her husband Shailender and as a result he fell down and thereafter, both the husband and wife, i.e. the accused persons started beating them with dandas. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, she saw two more persons State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 5 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala came and they both were armed with dandas and they shouted "jaan se maar dena gawahi dene ke kabil hi nahi rahenge". PW2 further deposed that she knows the names of those two persons namely Rajesh and Kanchan. PW2 further deposed that after sometime her husband regained consciousness and called the PCR which reached at the spot and took both of them to the hospital.
7. PW3 ASI Shanti Swaroop deposed that on 28.04.2016, he was posted at PS Khyala as Duty officer with duty hours from 4.00 PM to 12.00 AM. PW3 further deposed that he received one rukka from ASI Satbir Singh and he had made endorsement Ex. PW3/A thereupon and got the FIR Ex. PW3/B registered. The certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW3/C. He handed over the rukka to Ct. Shyam Sunder who took it to the spot.
8. PW4 SI Ravi Dutt (Retired) deposed that on 24.09.2014, he was posted at PS Khyala as SI with duty hours from 4.00 PM to 12.00 AM and he received one Rukka from SI Ajay Kumar and he had made endorsement Ex. PW4/A thereupon and got the FIR Ex. PW4/B registered. He handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to SI Ajay Kumar.
9. PW5 ASI Birender Singh deposed that on 27.04.2016, he was posted at PCR, West Zone as HC and on that day he was on duty as In-charge PCR van P-101 and on receiving information regarding quarrel at H. No. 963, Block B-3, 12.5 Gaj, Ragubir Nagar, Delhi he reached State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 6 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala there, and injured Shailender Chaudhary and his wife Babita met him and he shifted them to GGS hospital where their MLCs were prepared.
10. PW6 HC Ravinder deposed that on 27.04.2016, he was posted at PS Khyala as Ct and on that day, on receiving DD No. 14A, he along with ASI Satyavir Singh reached at H. No. 963, 12.5 Gaj. Block- B3, Ragubir Nagar, Delhi where they came to know that the injured persons have been shifted to GGS Hospital by PCR. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he along with ASI Satyavir Singh reached GGS hospital where both the offending parties were getting treatment. ASI Satyavir Singh obtained their MLCs, however, at that time, none of the injured persons gave statement stating that they are relatives. PW6 further deposed that on 28.04.2016, both the parties came to the PS and on the statement of Shailender Chaudhary, ASI Satyavir Singh prepared rukka, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered.
11. PW7 SI Satyaveer Singh deposed that on 27.04.2016, he was posted at PS- Khyala as ASI and on that day, on receiving DD No. 14A, he along with Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot i.e. B-3/836, 12 and half yard Gali, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi where he came to know that injured persons have been shifted to GGSG Hospital. PW7 further deposed that he went to the hospital where he obtained the MLCs of Shailender Chaudhary and Babita. At that time, none of them gave their statement. PW7 further deposed that on the next day in the evening, Shailender Chaudhary came to the PS and PW7 recorded the statement State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 7 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala of Shailender Chaudhary, prepared the rukka and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he along with Shailender Chaudhary went to the spot where, Ct. Shyam Sundar also arrived and handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to him (PW7). PW7 further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/A at the instance of Shailender Chaudhary. PW7 further deposed that he tried to search for accused Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata but in vain. PW7 further deposed that on 31.05.2016, Hon'ble Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused Premlata and on 02.06.2016, he formally arrested her vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/B. PW7 further deposed that on 17.06.2016, accused Jogesh Chaudhary was also granted anticipatory bail by Ld. ASJ and he formally arrested accused Jogesh Chaudhary on 19.06.2016 vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/C. PW7 further deposed that during investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses and pursuant to the statement of Babita, the names of Rajesh Chaudhary and Kanchan also cropped up. Thereafter he prepared charge sheet against accused Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata and also Rajesh Chaudhary and Kanchan were named in column no. 11 of the charge sheet without arrest and thereafter, he submitted the charge sheet for trial.
Admission/ Denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
12. The accused persons admitted the MLC No. 46603 and MLC No. 46604 both dated 27.04.2016 of injured Babita and Shailendra Chaudhary, in terms of the provisions of section 294 Cr.P.C.
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 8 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C
13. Thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons namely Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata and their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded separately. The accused persons denied the prosecution version and stated that they are innocent. They further stated that the complainant is in a habit to register false cases against them and their family members. They further stated that after registration of the present case, the accused persons left the said area just to avoid any further litigation. They further stated that the complainant had previously also involved them and their family members in a false case under section 354 of the IPC which is pending before the concerned Ld. MM. They further stated that a cross case has also been registered in relation to the present incident against the complainant on their complaint.
Defence Evidence
14. The accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in support of their defence.
15. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons namely Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata and have given due consideration to their rival contentions and perused the record.
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 9 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala Appreciation, Analysis and Findings:
16. The version of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2016 at about 07:45 am at B-3/836, 12.5 Sq. Yards Street, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, the accused Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata, in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to the victim Smt. Babita on her head with a danda, with such intention or knowledge that if by that act the death of the victim had been caused both the accused persons would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the injuries suffered by the victim have been opined to be grievous in nature; and further both the accused persons also caused simple hurt to the complainant Shri Shailender Chaudhary with danda. The Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State has argued that both the victims have supported the case of the prosecution; the complainant, immediately after the assault, had made a PCR call and both the victims were taken to the hospital by the PCR van; and the MLCs of the victims have been admitted by the accused persons; and that the injuries suffered by the complainant have been opined to be simple in nature and those suffered by the victim Babita have been opined to be grievous in nature. He has therefore contended that both the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 308/323/34 IPC.
17. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. He has further argued that a cross case arising out of the same State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 10 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala incident has also been registered against the victims and the accused persons had also suffered injuries at the hands of the victims. He has further argued that there is a delay in registration of the FIR and the alleged weapon of offence has not been recovered. He has further argued that the victim Babita had earlier also falsely implicated the accused Jogesh Chaudhary and other persons in a case under section 354 IPC. He has therefore submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 308/323/34 IPC.
Findings qua accused Jogesh Chaudhary
18. Now PW1 has deposed that on 27.04.2016 at about 7.45 AM, when he along with his wife Babita reached near their house, accused Premlata started insisting his wife to withdraw the case against them otherwise, the accused persons will kill them; and that accused Premlata caught hold of the hair of his wife and pulled her down on the ground and started beating her with fists and legs; and that accused Jogesh Chaudhary came out of his house holding two dandas and he handed over one danda to accused Premlata and thereafter both the accused persons started beating them with dandas; and that he received injuries on his head, hand and his leg; and that his wife received injuries on her chin and three injuries on her head; and that he and his wife became unconscious.
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 11 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala
19. Similarly PW2 Smt. Babita has deposed that on 27.04.2016 at about 7.45 AM, when she was coming back, she saw that accused Premlata and Jogesh were standing in the Gali; and that Premlata told her to withdraw the case of rape and robbery otherwise, the accused will kill them; and that she refused to do so and accused Premlata thereafter pulled her hair and pulled her down on the ground and started beating her with fist and kick blows; and that when her husband intervened to save her, accused Jogesh came there armed with a danda and gave a blow on head of her husband Shailender and as a result he fell down and thereafter, both the accused persons started beating them with dandas; and that after sometime her husband regained consciousness and called the PCR which reached at the spot and took both of them to the hospital.
20. PW-1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and the record of his cross examination is as under:
"My statement was recorded by police on 28.04.2016 at PS at about 8.30 AM. It is correct that one FIR u/s 323/324 IPC PS Khayala is registered against me. It is correct that the said FIR is lodged at the instance of accused arising out of the same incident. Vol. I was not aware initially about this FIR but came to know after about two months. I had told to the police in my statement that I was threatened by accused Premlata for withdrawal of the case. Confronted with statement where it is not recorded that the witness was threatened, however, it is recorded that Premlata asked for withdrawal of the case. I do not know that prior to my State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 12 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala filing the case against the accused Jogesh Chaudhary, he had already filed one FIR in connection with the occurrence of house break, robbery and causing injuries to his wife against me. However, it is correct that MLC of his wife was made. The rape case is pending in Court Room No.
358. The witness is unable to disclose the name of Ld. MM. In that case, my wife Babita has alleged against six boys and four women (ladies). It is incorrect to suggest that my wife had made previous allegations against the accused and his family members at Korla, District Saharsa, Bihar.
Accused Premlata spoke with my wife for about 4-5 minutes. It is incorrect to suggest that the case pending in Court Room No. 358, Tis Hazari is not pertaining to rape before the Court of Ms. Neetu Nagar. It is correct that it is pending before the court of Ms. Neetu Nagar, Ld. MM. Vol. It is pending u/s 354/34 and some other IPC provisions. It is correct that that accused has vacated his house from my neighbourhood about two years back.
I had told to the police that accused Premlata pulled my wife with hairs. Confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where it is so recorded. I had told to the police that accused Jogesh Chaudhary held two dandas in both the hands and passed one danda to his wife. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. It is correct that I did not make my statement to the police on the date of incident. It is incorrect to suggest that I and my wife falsely implicated the accused in false out of past vendatta and no such incident took place. It is incorrect to suggest that I wanted Jogesh Choudhay to vacate his jhuggi. Vol. He has sold on his State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 13 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala own. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Jogesh Chaudhary sold his jhuggi due to my pressure. It is incorrect to suggest that I do not suffer any injuries due to danda blows. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
21. PW-2 was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and the record of her cross examination is as under:
"I had told police that accused Jogesh and Premlata were standing in the Gali. Confronted with statement where it is not so recorded. I had told to the police that I was threatened for life if I did not withdraw the case. Confronted with statement where it is not so recorded. I had told to the police that accused Premlata caught hold with my hairs. Confronted with the statement where it is not so recorded. I had told police that Jogesh brought danda. Confronted with the statement wherein it is recorded that Jogesh lifted the danda lying in the Gali. I had told police that he gave danda blow on my husband's hand. Confronted with the statement where it is not so recorded. I had told to the police that accused Premlata gave blows with danda to me and my husband. Confronted with the statement where it is not so recorded. It is incorrect to suggest that in the year 2014, I and my husband caused house break, robbery and looted money from the house of the accused. It is correct that accused had lodged an FIR against us out of the same occurrence of 27.04.2016. It is correct that the said case has also been referred to the Lok Adalat on the consent of the accused persons. It is correct that the State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 14 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala accused persons were ready for compromise in the said matter but I am not ready for any compromise in the present case. In the rape case which was lodged by me there were ten accused persons. It is incorrect to suggest that the said matter is not arising out of occurrence of rape. It is incorrect to suggest that I have filed a false case. My husband's statement was not recorded in my presence. It is correct that police made enquiry from my husband in my presence. It is incorrect to suggest that I have made belated deliberate statement to the police later on. I had told to the police about Rajesh and Kanchan being laced with dandas saying "In logon ko jaan se maar dena. Bayan dene ke layak mat chhodna". My statement was recorded on 28.04.2016. Vol. The statement of my husband was also recorded on the same day. I was told by my husband about the contents of statement made by him to the police on the same day. It is incorrect to suggest that I had also lodged a complaint against the accused Jogesh and his family at the village prior to the present incident. It is correct that accused had sold his house two years back. It is incorrect to suggest that accused sold his house in our pressure. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
22. It is therefore clear that both the victims have fully supported the case of the prosecution and have categorically deposed that they were assaulted by the accused persons at the time of the incident and that the accused Jogesh had also assaulted them with a danda. It is seen that the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons could not elicit anything substantial during the cross-examination of PW1 and State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 15 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala PW2 which discredits their testimonies qua the assault upon the victims by accused Jogesh Chaudhary with a danda or otherwise establishes the defence of the accused persons. The victims have, by and large, remained consistent and steadfast in their account qua accused Jogesh Chaudhary, despite prolonged and detailed cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. The evidence of the victims, therefore, inspires full confidence.
23. Dealing with minor discrepancies in the testimonies of PW1 and PW 2 qua the incident and the role of accused Jogesh Chaudhary, I am of the opinion that the same are totally inconsequential and do not affect the prosecution case. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is bound to be some discrepancy between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. In fact, it has been held that no true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details and perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. Trivial discrepancies and minor embellishments ought not to obliterate the evidence which has otherwise been found to be reliable. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, reported as A.I.R. 1999 SC 3717, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony reported as AIR 1985 SC 48, Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as A.I.R. 1999 SC 3544 and Appabhai v. State of Gujarat State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 16 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala reported as AIR 1988 SC 696.
24. Furthermore, the testimony of an injured victim stands on a higher pedestal and clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to bald denials/ assertions, is required to discredit his/ her testimony. The testimony of the injured/ victim Babita therefore carries greater weight. In this respect reference may be made to the judgment titled as Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"......26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". (Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 12; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957; Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, 16AIR 1988 SC 696; Bonkya alias Bharat Shivaji Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 447; Bhag Singh & Ors. (supra);
Mohar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2002) 7 State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 17 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala SCC 606; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270; Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2261; Balraje alias Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673)...."
25. It is true that that there is some delay in the registration of the FIR in as much as the complainant gave his statement on the next day, after the incident. However, PW1 has explained that he and his wife became unconscious after the incident and they regained consciousness after half an hour and thereafter he called the police at 100 number; and that the PCR van arrived at the spot and took him and his wife to Guru Govind Hospital; and that the police arrived at the hospital; however, he and his wife were not in proper senses; and that he along with his wife were referred to Deen Dayal Hospital and they both got discharged from the hospital in the evening hours; and thereafter on 28.04.2016, he went to PS Khyala and gave his statement to the police. Thus, the delay in registration of the FIR has been duly explained by the complainant.
26. Moreover, PW-1 has clearly deposed that he made a PCR call immediately after the incident on 27.04.2016. The PCR call was received on 08:05 AM. PCR reached at the spot and found the victims, namely Shailender Chaudhary (PW-1) and his wife Babita (PW-2) at the spot. PW-5 HC Birender Singh has confirmed this fact and has further deposed that he shifted both the injured persons to GGS hospital, where State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 18 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala their MLCs were prepared. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. Counsel for the accused chose not to cross examine PW-5 and thus his testimony has gone unrebutted. It is further seen that the MLC of victim Babita has been prepared at 08:50 am on 27.04.2016 while the MLC of victim Shailender Chaudhary has been prepared at 08:56 am on 27.04.2016 Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, New Delhi reflecting the alleged history of physical assault by known person. The MLCs have been admitted by the accused persons in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C. Thus, the victims were medically examined immediately after the incident. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any doubt that the incident had in fact taken place and the victims had indeed suffered injuries in the incident. The delay in recording of the statement of the complainant and registration of the FIR is therefore not material.
27. Further the motive for the assault also stands established. It has been admitted by the accused persons that an earlier case filed by victim Babita against accused Jogesh and others for the offence under section 354 IPC is pending. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed that the assault ensued as the accused Premlata pressurized the victim Babita to withdraw the said previous case and when she refused she and her husband were assaulted. The accused persons have contended that the said previous case is also a false case, however, there is nothing on record which even prima facie establishes this contention of the accused persons.
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 19 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala
28. Further, it is not the case of the accused persons that they had made the PCR call after the incident. The accused persons were not even found at the spot by the PCR. PW-5 has deposed that he found the injured Babita and Shailender Chaudhary at the spot, but he has stated nothing about the accused persons being found at the spot in injured condition. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the accused persons had also suffered injuries in the incident, however he has admitted that the nature of injuries suffered by the accused persons is simple. The accused persons have failed to establish that they had suffered any major injuries in the incident or that any weapon was used by the complainant and his wife in assaulting them. It is natural and reasonable that the accused persons may have suffered some minor injuries as the complainant and his wife would have naturally responded to the assault committed upon them. Thus, the minor injuries on the person of the accused persons, if any, stand duly explained.
29. On the other hand, it is seen that as per the MLC of victim Babita she sustained the following injuries (i) CLW present over right side of chin in size of approx. 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm and over occipital region in size of 2 cm x .5 cm x .5 cm (ii) haematoma present over left side of forehead; (iii) swelling and tenderness present over left hand and left thigh and abrasion over left hand and left arm. Thus, the victim Babita suffered injuries on her vital body parts i.e. face and head. The injuries sustained by victim Babita have been opined to be grievous in nature. The nature of weapon has been opined as Blunt. The MLC of State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 20 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala victim Babita has been admitted by the accused persons in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C. The MLC coupled with the oral testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 leads to the inference that the said injuries could have been caused with a danda in the manner as has been described by the victims.
30. The MLC of victim Shailender Chaudhary shows that he sustained the following injuries: (i) CLW present over right-side parietal region in size of approx. 4.5 cm X 1 cm and 1 cm. (ii) Abrasion present over left knee, left shoulder along with bruises (ii) Patient complaining of pain in left shoulder. The injuries sustained by victim Shailender have been opined to be simple in nature. The nature of weapon has been opined as Blunt. The MLC of victim Shailender has also been admitted by the accused persons in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C. The MLC coupled with the oral testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 leads to the inference that the said injuries could have been caused with a danda in the manner as has been described by the victims. However, it is seen that in respect of the injuries sustained by the victim Shailender charge has only been framed for the offence under section 323 IPC.
31. Therefore, the fact that the victims Babita and Shailender Chaudhary had suffered injuries in the incident cannot be doubted. The material on record reveals that the injuries were caused to both the victims as they were assaulted with a danda by accused Jogesh Chaudhary. The injuries suffered by complainant Shailender Chaudhary have been opined to be simple in nature and thus an offence under State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 21 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala section 323 IPC is made out against accused Jogesh Chaudhary for causing simple hurt to the complainant Shailender Chaudhary by beating him with a danda.
32. Coming to the charge under section 308/34 IPC, the same has been framed qua the beatings given to victim Babita with a danda. The material on record reveals that injuries were caused to victim Babita as she was assaulted with a danda by accused Jogesh Chaudhary. The injuries were found on the vital body parts of the victim Babita i.e. head and face and the same have been opined to be grievous in nature. Coming to the parameters which need to be looked at when assessing whether an offence has been committed under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution is obligated to prove that the accused had committed the act with such intention or knowledge, that if he, by that act, had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As such, the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused, is to be deduced from the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused, the nature of injuries, the weapon of offence and the seat of injury i.e. the portion of the body where such injury was inflicted. Furthermore, to secure a conviction under section 308 IPC, it is not always necessary that the bodily injury inflicted should be sufficient to cause death. While the nature of the injury can often provide significant insight into the accused's intent, such intent can also be inferred from other surrounding circumstances, and, in some cases, even without reference to the actual injuries sustained. The section draws a distinction State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 22 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala between the act committed by the accused and its consequences, if any. An act may not result in any serious injury to the victim, yet the accused may still be held liable under this provision. What the Court must determine is whether the act, regardless of its outcome, was committed with the intention or knowledge, and under the conditions specified in the section.
33. A danda is, indubitably, a dangerous weapon capable of causing serious bodily harm. The medical evidence on record indicates that the injuries sustained by the victim Babita are of grievous nature. The multiplicity and location of the injuries demonstrate that the accused Jogesh Chaudhary not only delivered repeated blows but also targeted vital parts of the victims' body. These circumstances lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused intended to cause such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death. The fact that such injuries, actually did not result in the death of the victim is not relevant as the matter relates to only an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is trite that various factors such as resistance by the victim, etc. or other fortuitous circumstances may influence the actual severity of the injuries inflicted. Nevertheless, the nature of the weapon used, the number of blows inflicted, and the deliberate targeting of the vital parts of the body, unequivocally establish the requisite intention on the part of the accused to cause injuries as were likely to cause death. Accordingly, the accused Jogesh Chaudhary is clearly liable for the commission of the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide, punishable under State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 23 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having assaulted the victim Babita with a danda.
34. It is true that the weapon of offence i.e. danda has not been recovered. However, mere non recovery of danda is not fatal to the case of the prosecution when both the witnesses have categorically stated that they were assaulted with a danda and victim Babita had suffered injuries which have been opined to be grievous in nature. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. Moreover, the IO has explained in the charge-sheet that the accused Jogesh Chaudhary had been granted anticipatory bail and when he was formally arrested on 19.06.2016 and interrogated and he disclosed that he had picked up the said danda from the street and he had thrown the same in the street after the incident (on 27.04.2016) and he cannot get the same recovered. It was in these circumstances that the danda could not be recovered. The non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as the direct and consistent ocular evidence of the victims clearly establishes that the weapon used was a danda and even the medical opinion regarding the nature of the weapon and the nature of injuries sustained further corroborate this fact.
35. Furthermore, in this respect reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Laly alias Manikandan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424 wherein it has been held:
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 24 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala "...Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted...."
36. The net result is that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Jogesh Chaudhary is liable for the offences under sections 308/323 of the IPC.
Findings qua accused Premlata
37. Coming to the role of accused Premlata in the incident, if the initial statement of the complainant Shailender Chaudhary (PW-1), which is Ex. PW1/A, is examined, it is seen that he had stated to the police that accused Premlata asked Babita to withdraw the case filed by her and accused Premlata pushed Babita on the ground and started beating her with fist and leg blows; and that in the mean-time accused Jogesh Chaudhary came with a danda and he started beating the complainant and his wife with a danda in a dangerous manner. It is no- where alleged in his statement that accused Premlata had also assaulted the victims with the said danda. Similarly, the statement of the injured/ victim Smt. Babita (PW-2) was also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C and she also stated that accused Premlata asked her to withdraw the case State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 25 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala and when she refused accused Premlata pushed her on the ground and assaulted her with fist and leg blows and thereafter accused Jogesh Chaudhary picked up a danda lying there and both the accused persons gave beatings to both Babita and Shailender Chaudhary. However, it is not specifically alleged that accused Premlata had also assaulted the victims with the said danda.
38. However, in the Court both, PW1 and PW2 have deposed that both the accused persons namely Jogesh Chaudhary and Premlata had given beatings to them with danda. PW1 stated in his examination in chief that accused Jogesh Chaudhary came out of his house holding two dandas and he handed over one danda to accused Premlata and thereafter both the accused persons started beating them with dandas. But in his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he had told the police that accused Jogesh Chaudhary held two dandas in both the hands and passed one danda to his wife; however, when he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A, it was not found so recorded and PW-2 failed to offer any explanation in this respect. Similarly, PW2 deposed that when her husband intervened to save her Jogesh came there armed with a danda and gave a blow on head of her husband Shailender and as a result he fell down and thereafter, both the husband and wife, i.e. the accused persons started beating them with dandas. By using the word 'dandas', PW-2 also meant that both the accused persons were carrying separate dandas. But in her cross-examination, PW-2 stated that she had told the police that accused Premlata gave blows with danda to her and her husband;
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 26 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala however, when she was confronted with her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. this specific allegation was not found recorded and she failed to offer any explanation in this respect. There is no allegation in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 (which were given to the police) that there were two dandas and accused Premlata had given beatings to the victims with a danda. There is no specific allegation in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of victim Babita (PW-2) that accused Premlata had beaten her with a danda. Accordingly, the allegation that even accused Premlata had given beatings to PW1 and PW2 with a danda cannot be accepted and the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are not worthy of credence in this respect and it appears that this allegation has been inserted in their testimonies as an afterthought by way of an improvement. Thus, it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Premlata had assaulted the victims with a danda. Thus, accused Premlata cannot be held liable for directly/ personally committing an offence under section 308 IPC.
39. The next question which arises is as to whether accused Premlata can be held liable for the offence of section 308 IPC with the aid of section 34 IPC. Now Section 34 IPC enacts a rule of vicarious criminal liability that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, every such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. In the judgment titled as Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad reported as AIR State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 27 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala 1955 SC 216 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, enunciating the principles with respect to section 34 IPC, observed that:
"......33. Now in the case of section 34 we think it is well established that a common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of them all: Mahbub Shah v. King-
Emperor [(1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 148, 153, 154.].
Accordingly, there must have been a prior meeting of minds. Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention, namely the intention to kill, and each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would have the common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre- arranged plan. In a case like that, each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for the act of any of the others; and if the prosecution cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one he cannot be convicted of the murder however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in his case:
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King- Emperor [(1924) L.R. 52 I.A. 40, 49] and Mahbub Shah v. King- Emperor [(1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 148, 153, 154.]. As their Lordships say in the latter case, "the partition which divides their bounds is often very thin:
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 28 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala nevertheless, the distinction is real and substantial, and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice".
34. The plan need not be elaborate, nor is a long interval of time required. It could arise and be formed suddenly, as for example, when one man calls on bystanders to help him kill a given individual and they, either by their words or their acts, indicate their assent to him and join him in the assault. There is then the necessary meeting of the minds. There is a pre-arranged plan however hastily formed and rudely conceived. But pre-arrangement there must be and premeditated concert. It is not enough, as in the latter Privy Council case, to have the same intention independently of each other, e.g., the intention to rescue another and, if necessary, to kill those who oppose.
35. In the present case, there is no evidence of any prior meeting. We know nothing of what they said or did before the attack-not even immediately before. Pandurang is not even of the same caste as the others, Bhilia, Tukia and Nilia are Lambadas, Pandurang is a Hatkar and Tukaram a Maratha. It is true prior concert and arrangement can, and indeed often must, be determined from subsequent conduct as, for example, by a systematic plan of campaign unfolding itself during the course of the action which could only be referable to prior concert and State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 29 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala pre- arrangement, or a running away together in a body or a meeting together subsequently. But, to quote the Privy Council again, "the inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case".
40. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the initial statement of the injured/ victim Smt. Babita (PW-2) shows that the accused Jogesh Chaudhary had during the incident picked up a danda lying there i.e. in the street and had beaten the victims with the same. It has not been established that accused Premlata had beaten the victims with a danda or had otherwise assisted accused Jogesh Chaudhary in beating the victims with a danda. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused Premlata had provided the danda to accused Jogesh Chaudhary or had otherwise exhorted accused Jogesh Chaudhary to assault the victims with a danda in a dangerous manner targeting their vital body parts. There is nothing on record to show that the accused Premlata had made any utterances in this respect. There is no evidence to show that accused Premlata was instrumental in procuring the said danda or that she was even aware about the danda lying in the street. There is no evidence to establish that the accused Premlata was even aware that accused Jogesh Chaudhary would pick up the danda lying in the street and hit the victims on their vital body parts. No specific role of accused Premlata has been specified after the accused Jogesh Chaudhary picked up the danda lying in the street and assaulted the victims with the same.
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 30 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala Thus, it cannot be said that the accused Premlata shared any common intention with accused Jogesh Chaudhary to assault the victims with a danda on their vital body parts and cause such injuries to them which were likely to cause their death or to cause grievous injuries to the victim Babita and the evidence on record leads to the conclusion that accused Jogesh Chaudhary acted alone in this respect, at the spur of the moment, without any involvement of accused Premlata. Hence, accused Premlata cannot be held liable for the offence under section 308 IPC with the aid of section 34 IPC or otherwise.
41. Further PW1 and PW-2 had deposed that accused Premlata had pulled the hair victim Babita/ PW-2; however, they were confronted with their statements given to the police where this allegation was not found recorded and they failed to offer any explanation in this respect. Similarly, PW-2 also made this allegation, however, when she Further PW-2 stated in her cross examination that she had told the police that she was threatened for life if she did not withdraw the case. She was confronted with her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. where this allegation was not found recorded and she failed to offer any explanation in this respect. Thus, again these allegations cannot be said to have been duly proved and it appears that these allegations have been inserted in their testimonies as an afterthought by way of improvements.
42. Thus, the only allegation qua accused Premlata which stands proved is that accused Premlata had pushed the victim Babita on State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 31 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala the ground and had beaten her with fist and leg blows. Therefore, there is no evidence and it otherwise does not appear that the grievous injuries which have been caused to victim Babita were on account of the said beatings given by accused Premlata and the facts lead to the reasonable inference that the grievous injuries suffered by victim Babita were a result of the assault with a danda for which only accused Jogesh Chaudhary is responsible. The accused Premlata neither assaulted the victim Babita with a danda, nor she shared common intention with the accused Jogesh Chaudhary to assault the victim Babita with a danda in such a manner which was likely to cause her death nor she intended to cause grievous hurt to the victim nor she assaulted the victim in such a manner which could have resulted in grievous injuries. Therefore, at the most it can be said that accused Premlata had caused simple hurt to the victim Babita by pushing her on ground and beating her with fists and leg blows. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused Premlata is liable for the offence under section 308/34 IPC. The inevitable conclusion is that the accused Premlata is only liable for the offence under section 323 of the IPC for having assaulted victim Babita with fist and kick blows and therefore she is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 323 IPC with the aid of the provisions of section 222 Cr.P.C.
Conclusion:
43. The result is that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused Jogesh Chaudhary beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Jogesh Chaudhary is convicted for the offences State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 32 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala punishable under section 308/323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, accused Premlata is convicted only for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Jogesh Chaudhary and accused Premlata shall be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA
(Pronounced in the open court Date: 2026.02.18
16:54:35 +0530
on the 18.02.2026).
(Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha)
District Judge-04 (South)
Saket Courts, Delhi
18.02.2026
Earlier posted as:
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Note: This Judgment has been pronounced in terms of Note 2 of the Transfer Order No. 8/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2026 dated 06.02.2026. File be sent back to the Court of ASJ-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
State v. Jogesh Chaudhary & another Page No. 33 of 33 FIR No. 209/2016; P.S. Khyala