Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh on 21 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA-I:
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
SC No. 263/2022
State Vs. Rajesh
FIR No. 451/2021
PS Nand Nagri
Under Section 307/326/506/34 IPC
CNR No. : DLSH01-004730-2022
State Versus Rajesh S/o Shri Madan
R/o E-11, MCD Flats,
Nand Nagri, Delhi
Date of institution : 12.11.2021
Date of reserving judgment : 11.8.2025
Date of judgment : 21.8.2025
JUDGMENT:
The present FIR was registered on the complaint of Smt. Anju W/o Baljeet who stated that on the intervening night of 25/26.7.2021, at about 11.30 pm, when she was present at her house, her sister Nisha suddenly came there while shouting to save her. She at once opened the door and came out with her husband Baljeet. In the meanwhile, her brother-in-law (jija) Rajesh also came there and started abusing Nisha and also gave beatings to her. When Baljeet tried to intervene, Rajesh gave beatings to him also. Thereafter, Rajesh took out a knife from his wearing pant and gave its blow on the face of Baljeet, resultantly, he sustained injuries and blood started oozing out of his face. Rajesh then fled away from the spot. The complainant also alleged that at that time, one Mukesh and Sanjeev were also present with the accused.
1.1 Injured Baljeet was got medically examined and on the complaint of Anju, present FIR was initially registered for the offences SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 1 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 14:57:04 +0530 under Section 326/34 IPC. Subsequently, after recording statement of witnesses and injured Baljeet, Section 307/506 IPC were added in the FIR. On 10.8.2021, accused Rajesh was arrested at the instance of injured and his one-day PC remand was obtained from the Court. However, accused fled away during his police remand. He was again arrested on 15.8.2021 and was sent to judicial custody. The names of accused Sanjeev and Mukesh were kept in Column No. 12 of the charge sheet. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Rajesh for the offences punishable under Section 307/326/34 IPC.
2. Copies were supplied to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr. PC and case was committed to the Sessions Court. After hearing arguments, charge for the offences punishable under Section 307/506 IPC, was framed against the accused, vide order dt. 27.7.2022.
3. At the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all.
PW1 Smt. Anju was the complainant and wife of injured. She proved her complaint as Ex.PW1/A and identified the accused in the Court, as assailant.
PW2 Baljeet was the injured and he also deposed about the incident in which he received injuries at the hands of accused. He proved the arrest documents of the accused.
PW3 Ms. Nisha was the wife of the accused and she also deposed about the incident levelling allegations against the accused regarding inflicting knife injury upon the injured.
PW4 Smt. Maya was the mother of complainant Anju and stated that she had witnessed the incident.
PW5 Vinay was the son of PW4 and brother of complainant. He also deposed about the incident.
PW6 Dr. Nadeem had medically examined injured Baljeet at GTB Hospital and proved his MLC and emergency registration card, as SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 2 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 14:57:16 +0530 Ex.PW6/A and PW6/B respectively, prepared by Dr. Sumit.
PW7 HC Rajeev was the Duty Officer and he proved the computerized copy of FIR and certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively. He also proved endorsement made on ruqqa as Ex.PW1/A1.
PW8 HC Pankaj was a witness to the pointing out of the spot by the accused. He proved the pointing out memo as Ex.PW8/A. PW9 HC Jitender joined investigation with SI Bintu on receipt of DD No. 3A regarding the incident and was left at the spot while SI Bintu took the injured to GTB Hospital.
PW10 HC Devender was a witness to the arrest of accused on 15.8.2021 and he proved the arrest memo as Ex.PW10/A. PW11 Dr. Varsha proved the noting made by Dr. Rahul on the back side of MLC, as Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Dr. Deepak Khandelwal proved the opinion given by Dr. Kesari Singh on the MLC of injured as grievous. He also proved the noting prepared by Dr. Saurabh Bhardwaj as Ex.PW12/A on a separate sheet.
PW13 SI Bintu Sharma was the IO and he deposed about the investigation conducted by him and proved the relevant documents.
4. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC and the entire incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied and pleaded innocence. He took the defense that he was not having cordial relations with his wife and she wanted to take divorce from him to which he was not ready. Thus, she implicated him in this false case. He chose to lead evidence in his defense.
4.1 DW1 Ms. Asha was the sister of accused and she deposed that accused came to her house on 25.7.2021 at about 9.00 am and remained there till morning of 26.7.2021. She further deposed that during SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 3 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 14:57:46 +0530 the said period, accused did not go anywhere and had not caused any injury to anyone. She further claimed that the accused was having quarrel with his wife who wanted to give divorce to her. Thus, she falsely implicated the accused in this case.
5. I have heard Mr. Mohd. Iqrar - Ld. Chief PP for the State, Shri SS Chaudhary - Ld. Counsel for accused and have carefully gone through the records of the case. I have also considered the written submissions filed by Ld. Defense Counsel.
6. It was submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that apart from the complainant and the injured, three other eye witnesses have deposed about the incident and all have implicated the accused. They have specifically deposed about the act of the accused of giving a knife blow on the face of the injured. It was further submitted that the testimony of all the five eye witnesses including the complainant and the injured could not be controverted during his cross-examination and therefore the act of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. It was also pointed out that the blow was given on the face of the injured which is a vital part of the body and thus, knowledge can be imputed upon the accused that his act could have caused death of the injured. Hence, it was prayed that the accused be convicted for the offences charged with. 6.1 Ld. Counsel for the accused, in support of the written submissions argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6.2 It was submitted by Ld. Counsel that PW3 and PW4 turned hostile since they failed to corroborate the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and as such the prosecution story becomes false and, in any case, the benefit of doubt would be available to the accused. In order to appreciate this argument, the testimonies of these four witnesses require consideration.
SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021
State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 4 of 22
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21
14:58:03 +0530
6.3 PW1 deposed that she is the sister of the wife of accused. On
25.7.2021, a quarrel took place between the accused and his wife Nisha and to save herself, Nisha came to her house at 11.30 pm, deposing further that her house is near to her house. She further deposed that Nisha was crying 'bachao-bachao' and on hearing her cries, she along with her mother and brother came out and accused also reached there chasing the complainant and started beating her. She further deposed that her husband also reached the spot and tried to intervene and also asked the accused to leave the place but the accused took out a knife from his pant and attacked upon her husband, resulting injuries on his face. She further deposed that the brothers of the accused namely Sanjeev and Mukesh were also with him who also tried to pacify the accused. The matter was then reported to the police and injured was taken to the hospital by her son. 6.4 PW2 Baljeet was the injured and husband of PW1. He also deposed the same facts, adding that the accused was under influence of liquor and that he inflicted knife blow on his face which was taken out from the back side of his pant and that after causing injury, the accused fled away.
6.5 PW3 Nisha was the wife of the accused and she also deposed the correct time of the incident. She also deposed that on the day of incident, the accused was consuming liquor outside the house with his friends and at about 10.30 pm, came inside and demanded money from her and also started quarreling with her. She sent her child to call her brother-in-law Mukesh who also reached there. She deposed that at that time accused was beating her and pulling her hairs and took out a bottle to attack her but she saved herself and ran towards the house of her mother situated nearby. Accused also followed her. Answering the knock, her mother and sister came out of the house and the accused threw glass bottle upon her but she bent down and saved herself. In the meanwhile, SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 5 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 14:58:11 +0530 her brother-in-law/injured/PW2 also arrived there at about 11.30 pm and tried to save her from the accused but the accused took a knife from his back side and caused injury with it on the face of injured Baljeet. 6.6 PW4 Maya was the mother of PW1 and PW3. She also deposed in the same manner and on the same lines as deposed by PW1, PW2 and PW3. However, she added that when injured Baljeet tried to pacify the matter, accused pushed him and then Baljeet gave a slap to the accused on which the accused took out a knife from his back side and injured Baljeet and thereafter, he ran away. 6.7 PW5 Vinay, brother of complainant/PW1 and Nisha/PW3, also deposed on the same lines and deposed that Nisha was shouting 'bachao-bachao'. He also deposed that injured Baljeet tried to pacify the accused and slapped him and the accused got annoyed and attacked Baljeet with the knife while saying that 'Aaj tera kaam tamam karta hu' (I will finish you today).
6.8 It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that all the said witnesses were the relatives of the injured and therefore, their testimonies are tainted and cannot be relied upon. I differ with this argument since no law prohibits near relatives who were only natural witnesses available and present at the spot, to become witnesses of the incident. Their testimony cannot be disbelieved or brushed aside only because they are relative of the injured, if otherwise their version is supported by each other in all material particulars and their testimony appears to be trustworthy.
6.9 Ld. Defense Counsel submitted that though the complainant and other witnesses alleged that at the time of incident, Sanjeev and Mukesh were also present with the accused but they were never arrested nor their statements were recorded by the IO. It is evident from the statements of all the above five witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.
SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021
State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 6 of 22
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21
14:58:28 +0530
PC as well as their testimonies recorded in the Court that no role has been attributed to these persons by any of the witness. On the contrary, it has been deposed by them that they had tried to pacify the accused. Thus, there is no evidence on record to charge Sanjeev or Mukesh for any offence and as such, they were rightly placed in Column No. 12 of the charge sheet and were neither summoned by the Ld. MM nor any cognizance was taken against them.
6.10 Ld, Counsel for the accused pointed out various other contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses. It was submitted that PW2 injured Baljeet never deposed that Sanjeev and Mukesh were also present at the spot though this fact was deposed by other witnesses. He has further pointed out that PW3 Nisha - wife of the accused, had deposed that the accused had attacked with a bottle but no bottle was recovered from the spot. Ld. Counsel further submitted that according to PW3, accused was consuming liquor with friends at home but she could not depose the name of any such friend. She also deposed that one Johny was present at the spot but he was not made a witness. 6.11 Firstly, PW3 had deposed that the accused was consuming liquor outside the house and not in the house as argued by the Ld. Counsel, so there was no occasion for her to see as to with whom he was drinking and thus, she could not have deposed the names of those friends. The name of public person Johny was never stated by PW3 to the police and even if she had stated so and police failed to make him a witness, no fault can be found in the deposition of the witness. It was further pointed out that PW3 in her statement under Section 161 Cr. PC had stated that on the day of incident, the accused was drinking in the house with his brother Mukesh and maternal nephew Sanjeev. However, the witness was never confronted with the said statement during her testimony before the Court as required by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 7 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 14:58:36 +0530 therefore, it cannot be used in favour of the accused. 6.12 It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that PW4 and PW5 had deposed that the injured Baljeet had slapped the accused but this fact was neither deposed by the injured himself nor by the other two witnesses. It was also pointed out that PW4 Smt. Maya was unable to tell the day of incident and as such her testimony is not reliable. In my opinion it is rather contrary. If a witness deposes about the facts but is unable to depose the precise date and time, his testimony would be natural rather than the testimony of a witness who is tutored with date, time and other minute details.
6.13 It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since all the witnesses are closely related to each other, therefore, they were jealous with the accused since the relations between the accused and his wife were not cordial. It was informed that it was a second marriage of both the accused and his wife Nisha. It was pointed out that DW Asha, the sister of the accused, had deposed that on the day of incident, the accused was at her residence and as such two views have come on record since the person cannot be present at two places at the same time. Hence, the view favouring the accused has to be adopted by the Court and benefit of doubt should be extended to him. In support of the submissions, Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgments delivered in Bom Bahadur Thapa vs. United Commercial Bank 96 (2002) DLT 801; Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 and T. Subramaniam vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401.
6.14 There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition. However, the testimony of DW Asha has to be analyzed. She deposed that on 25.7.2021 at about 9.00 am, the accused came to her house as she was unwell and stayed there for the entire day and left in the morning of 26.7.2021. During this period, he never went anywhere. She also deposed SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 8 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 14:58:52 +0530 that in the evening of 26.7.2021, the accused informed that he has been falsely implicated in this present case. In the cross-examination, she deposed that she had not taken any medical treatment from any doctor on 25.7.2021 nor the accused asked her to accompany him to the doctor. She further deposed that she had never visited the PS regarding this case to inform the police that the accused was with her at the time of incident. 6.15 Apart from the aforesaid, it is also to be noted that according to the aforesaid witnesses and the prosecution case, the accused had fled away from the spot. He was arrested on 10.8.2021. Even if for the sake of arguments, the version of the defense witness is accepted, she has never stated as to where the accused had gone in the morning of 26.7.2021 and how he came to know in the evening of the same day about his involvement in this case and how he informed her. Furthermore, in the cross-examination of any of the above prosecution witnesses who were the eye witnesses of the incident, no suggestion was given to them that at the time of incident, the accused was present in the house of his sister DW1 Asha. Thus, this witness is clearly not only interested but has been subsequently planted to create a new story. For these reasons, the argument of Ld. Counsel of two stories as well as the judgments relied upon are not applicable to the facts of this case. 6.16 It was next argued that PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that about 20-25 persons were present at the place of incident, however none of them was made a witness to the alleged incident. Similarly, it was submitted that no public person was joined in the investigation at the time of the arrest of the accused or at the time of his personal search which leads to a conclusion that the prosecution story is false. Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment delivered in Anoop Joshi vs. State 1992 (2) CC Cases 314 Delhi and Roop Chand vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) CLR 69 wherein it was observed that SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 9 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:05:39 +0530 investigation agency shall make sincere effort and join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband. 6.17 However, reference can be made to the judgment in Goverdhan & anr. Vs. State of Chhatisgarh Crl. Appeal No. 116/2011 dated 09.1.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court made following observations in para 71 :
"71.In this context one may also refer to the decision of this Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2003) 5 SCC 291 in which it was observed that the testimony of the police personnel involved in recovery of articles need not be disbelieved and testimony of police personnel is to be treated similarly as testimony of any other witness. It was held that, "8. Shri Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution are police personnel and in the absence of any public witness, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. .........................." (emphasis added)"
Thus, we do not find any reason to doubt the testimony of the police/I.O. (PW-15)."
6.18 In light of the above observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for accused that only because no public person was joined in the investigation or at the time of arrest or search of SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 10 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:05:52 +0530 the accused, the prosecution case cannot be discarded. 6.19 It was further submitted by Ld. Counsel that as per the testimony of the witnesses, PW2/injured himself was under the influence of liquor whereas the accused who was alleged to have consumed liquor before the incident, was found not to have consumed any alcohol as per his medical report. Even if the contention is accepted, it would not make any material difference to the alleged incident. It is not the case of the prosecution or even of the complainant and injured that because of intoxication or under influence of liquor, the accused had committed the offence.
6.20 It was further submitted that PW4 Maya deposed that accused was chasing Nisha with Sanjeev and Mukesh, meaning thereby that Mukesh and Sanjeev also became accused. He pointed out that PW4 and PW5 also deposed that injured Baljeet had slapped the accused while the other three witnesses including the injured never deposed this fact. Further, that PW4 was unable to depose the day of incident, thus making her testimony unreliable and consequently testimonies of PW1 to PW3 are also not reliable.
6.21 It was also pointed out that PW5 Vinay had deposed that Nisha was crying for help saying 'bachao-bachao' but no other witness stated this fact which again leads to the inference that the prosecution case is false. This contention is contrary to records as PW1 Anju had also deposed that Nisha was asking for help saying 'bachao-bachao'. 6.22 It is a well settled law now that the testimonies of witnesses are not to be looked with digital precision. There is a human capacity varying from person to person depending upon his status, education and background to recollect a particular fact. He cannot be expected to repeat the incident in the exact words. There are bound to be some variations regarding small acts or words used in the incident, However, the Court has SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 11 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:06:09 +0530 to consider the deposition regarding the main incident. In Goverdhan's case (supra), the Hon'ble Court dealt with this issue in para 52 as under:
"52. Further, this Court also cautioned about attaching too much importance on minor discrepancies of the evidence of the witnesses in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 as follows:
"5. ... We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person.
What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 12 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:06:00 +0530 cross- examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him--perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment."
53. To the same effect it was also observed in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) Supp SCC 241 as follows:
"13. ... The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 :
1972 SCC (Cri) 819] observed:
8. ... This Court has held that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered....'".
SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 13 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:06:17 +0530 6.23 In the opinion of this Court, the discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel as aforesaid can at best be termed as only minor discrepancies which otherwise have no bearing on the main incident and in light of the above observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, they can be easily brushed aside.
6.24 The next contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused was that the weapon of offence, i.e. the knife, which was allegedly used by the accused in the incident was never recovered despite best efforts and even after taking police remand of the accused for a day which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. In the opinion of this Court, when all the eye witnesses have unequivocally deposed that the accused took out of the knife from his pant and caused injury upon the injured, the mere fact that the knife could not be recovered would not be sufficient to dismiss the prosecution case. The case of Gangadhar (supra) can be again referred to in this respect wherein the Hon'ble Court in para 70 dealt with this issue as under:
70. It is now well settled that non recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses as held in Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188, wherein it was observed as follows:
"12. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that as per the ballistic report the bullet found does not match with the firearm/gun recovered and therefore the use of gun as alleged is doubtful and therefore benefit of doubt must be given to the accused is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. At the most, it can be said that the gun recovered by the police from the accused may not have been used for killing and therefore the recovery of the actual weapon used for killing can be ignored and it is to be treated as if there is no recovery at all. For convicting an accused recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non. PW 1 and PW 2, as observed hereinabove, are reliable and trustworthy eyewitnesses to the incident and they have specifically stated that A-1 Rakesh fired from the gun and the deceased sustained injury. The injury by the gun has been established and proved from the medical evidence and the deposition of Dr Santosh Kumar, PW 5. Injury 1 is by gunshot.
SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021
State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 14 of 22
Digitally signed by
SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21
15:06:26 +0530
Therefore, it is not possible to reject the credible ocular evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 -- eyewitnesses who witnessed the shooting. It has no bearing on credibility of deposition of PW 1 and PW 2 that A-1 shot deceased with a gun, particularly as it is corroborated by bullet in the body and also stands corroborated by the testimony of PW 2 and PW 5. Therefore, merely because the ballistic report shows that the bullet recovered does not match with the gun recovered, it is not possible to reject the credible and reliable deposition of PW 1 and PW
2." (emphasis added) Hence, this argument of the Ld. Counsel for accused also does not find favour.
6.25 It was next contended by Ld. Counsel that all the material witnesses, i.e. PW1 to PW5 are interested witnesses being related to the complainant and therefore, their testimony should not be considered. It was also pointed out that they had deposed in favour of the complainant since she was having matrimonial dispute with the accused and therefore, they had falsely deposed in her favour being her close relatives. 6.26 Ld. Counsel for the accused has failed to place on record any document to show any matrimonial dispute between the accused and the complainant. It is matter of record that it was second marriage for both the parties but there is nothing on record to suggest any major matrimonial discord between them except for the regular wear and tear as could be gathered from the testimony of the complainant. No suggestion was ever given to any of the witnesses that they were deposing because of any acrimony between the two. The only suggestion given to the complainant/PW3 was that she used to quarrel with the accused and had expelled him from the house and had threatened to implicate him in false cases if he entered the house. She not only denied the suggestion but added that even now she is in fear that he can assault her. Thus, there is nothing on record to suggest that the material witnesses were interest though they are related to the complainant. Again, the judgment in SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 15 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:06:55 +0530 Goverdhan's case (supra) can be referred to wherein the Hon'ble Court dealt with this aspect in para 80 as under:
80. The appellants had also contended that the PW-10 was an interested witness and her testimony may not be believable. In this regard, it must be noted that PW-10, the mother of the deceased though was related to the victim cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be an interested witness. As to who is an "interested witness" and the "related witness" has been succinctly explained by this Court in the case of Mohd. Rojali Ali Vs. The State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567, wherein it was held that:
"13. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well- settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an "interested" witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between "interested" and "related" witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 593] ; Amit v. State of U.P. [Amit v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 107 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 590] ; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy [Gangabhavani v.Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 182] ). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathiv. State of T.N. [Ganapathi v. State of T.N., (2018) 5 SCC 549 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 793] , in the following terms, by referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v.
Kalki [State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 :
1981 SCC (Cri) 593] : (Ganapathi case [Ganapathi v. State of T.N., (2018) 5 SCC 549 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 793] , SCC p. 555, para 14) "14. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested"."
6.27 In Baban Shankar Daphal & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal No. 1675 of 2015 dated 22.1.2025, it was SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 16 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:07:03 +0530 reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
28. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased.
The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy."
6.28 Thus, simply because PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 were close relatives of the complainant/PW3, their testimonies cannot be overlooked or looked with suspicion when they were otherwise consistent and withstood the test of cross-examination.
6.29 It was next contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that no DD entries were made by the IO regarding the facts as to when he left the PS and arrived there after conducting the investigation on each and every date. It was submitted that such DD entries are required to be proved to lend support to the genuineness of the prosecution case and is also a legal requirement under Rule 19 Chapter 22 of the Punjab Police Rules. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Rattan Lal vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 Delhi wherein it has been observed that:
"If the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
6.30 DD entries are to be recorded by the police officials whenever they leave the PS or return there. This is also true whenever the SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 17 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:07:11 +0530 IO departs from the PS for investigation of the case and returns to the PS after conducting the investigation, he is required to make the departure and arrival entries and then record the substance of the investigation conducted by him in the case diary. However, it is not in every case that any lapse in making the DD entries, as aforesaid, would weaken the prosecution case. Such entries assume importance when the case is based on circumstantial evidence or involves only police witnesses but when there is direct evidence and the witnesses have made deposition in Court with impunity, the failure on part of the prosecution to prove the DD entries would not mitigate the case. Apart from that, it is to be noted that these DD entries were never questioned or called for during trial nor the IO/PW13 was ever questioned about these DD entries. In fact, in the cross-examination he deposed that he had reached the spot with Ct. Jitender on receipt of DD No. 3A.
6.31 As a matter of practice, two DD registers used to be maintained in Delhi. Register 'A' contains entries for the purpose of investigation and other information regarding any offence whereas Register 'B' contains entries regarding the other incidental matters including arrival and departure of the police official. Thus, in the present case, considering the fact that there is direct evidence against the accused, failure of the prosecution to prove the DD entries may be a lapse on its part but is not fatal to its case.
6.32 It was next contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision in Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55 (P & H) where it was observed that:
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have to must have'. If prosecution appears to be improbable or lack credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 18 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:07:20 +0530 6.33 The term 'reasonable doubts' in general parlance means that the doubt should not be unfounded, sham or imaginative but should have a reasoning. The term has been variedly discussed in several judgments including in the judgment of Goverdhan's case (supra) where in para 21 and 22 it has been observed as under:
"21. It will be relevant to discuss, at this juncture, what is meant by "reasonable doubt". It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense as observed in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 wherein it was observed as under :
"24. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than the truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overly emotional response.
Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case."
22. While applying this principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt the Court has to undertake a candid consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable manner as observed by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96 as follows:
"8. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression 'reasonable doubt' is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge.
9. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 19 of 22 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:07:27 +0530 Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
'It is difficult to define the phrase "reasonable doubt".
However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case [Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush 295:
59 Mass 295 (1850)] . He says: "It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
10. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
'The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
6.34 In light of the observations herein above, coupled with the consistent testimony of the material witnesses namely PW1 to PW5 including the injured and the complainant, which could not be controverted during cross-examination, there is no room to doubt the prosecution story and it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6.35 Lastly, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the vital ingredients of Section 307 IPC. It was further argued that no offence under Section 506 IPC is also disclosed from the testimony of the witnesses against the accused.
6.36 It is a matter of record that all the witnesses to the incident
SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021
State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 20 of 22
SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:07:35
+0530
have deposed that the accused had given a blow on the face of the injured/PW2 with a knife. The knife was never recovered and therefore, the length and breadth of the knife or its blade could not be known.
However, the version of the injured has been corroborated by the medical evidence. PW11 Dr. Varsha proved the MLC of injured as Ex.PW11/A. She was not cross-examined at all. It is recorded in the said MLC that the injured was having an incised wound at right cheek measuring 8 x 1.5 cm, thus, corroborating the testimony of PW1 to PW5. No discussion is required to say that an incised wound can be caused only by a sharp- edged weapon and when the said injury is read with the testimony of material witnesses, it leads to the conclusion that it was caused by the knife used by the accused. According to the said MLC, the nature of the injury has been opined as grievous which was proved by PW12. 6.37 It is a matter of record that none of the material witnesses deposed that the accused inflicted the blow with the knife on the face of the injured with any intention to kill him or in any pre-mediated manner. On the contrary, it can be gathered from their testimony that he caused the injury in a spurt of a moment when the injured tried to intervene and saved the complainant Nisha. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that the accused had either any intention or knowledge to cause death of the injured or made any attempt to cause his death which is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC. It is also recorded in the testimony of these witnesses that after causing the injury, the accused ran away from the spot. They never deposed that the accused threatened the injured or the complainant in any manner whatsoever. Thus, neither the offence under Section 307 IPC nor under Section 506 IPC have been proved against the accused. However, he is still guilty of causing grievous injury upon the injured with a sharp-edged weapon and therefore, is liable to be convicted under Section 325 IPC.
6.38 In view of the above discussion, accused Rajesh is hereby
SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021
State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 21 of 22
SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:07:42
+0530
acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307/506 IPC but is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.
Let he be heard on sentence.
Digitally signed byANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA ON 21st day of August 2025 SHARMA Date: 2025.08.21 15:07:48 +0530 (SANJAY SHARMA-I) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 263/2022 FIR No.451/2021 State Vs. Rajesh PS Nand Nagri 22 of 22