Delhi District Court
State vs Rambabu@ Raj on 4 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST01-003663-2021
SC No. 151/2021
State versus Ram Babu @ Raj
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H. No. D-II/72, 3rd Floor,
18 Gaj J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar, Delhi
Permanent address:
Village Bhuda Thana Raini,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
FIR No. : 200/2019
Police Station : Neb Sarai
Under Section : 308/34 IPC
Date of institution : 16.10.2020
Date of arguments : 27.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 04.04.2026
Appearances:
Sh. Gurbhej Singh Guraya, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State.
Sh. Ayyub Ahmad, Ld. Counsel and Sh. Sheeraj Saeed, Proxy Counsel
for accused.
JUDGMENT
Adumbrated in brief following are the relevant material facts of the case of prosecution. On 07/06/2019 ASI Ram Swaroop of Police Station Tigri produced MLC No. 500173844 of victim/injured Tarun Kumar, son of Late Sh. Digitally signed by Ramesh, resident of 291, Devli Village, Old Post Office, Neb GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:46:44 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 1 / 23 Sarai, New Delhi and MLC No. 500173944 of injured Om Prakash, son of Sh. Babu Ram, resident of G-71, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi before SI Anil Kumar at Police Station Neb Sarai, informing that incident of quarrel, which took place on 05/06/2019 was in jurisdiction of Police Station Neb Sarai. SI Anil Kumar reached the addresses mentioned in the MLC but did not meet injured there. When SI Anil Kumar was present on 08/06/2019 at Police Station Neb Sarai; then injured Tarun Kumar came at Police Station and gave following statement. That injured Tarun Kumar with family were residing at 291, Devli Village near Old Post Office, New Delhi and was presently not doing anything to work for gain. On 05/06/2019 at about 12.10 am when there was no light in the area of Devli, then Tarun Kumar with his friend Om Prakash had gone in the area and at about 12.50 am when they reached Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar and were talking in a vacant plot nearby Pahari; then Ram Babu, who was previously known to Tarun Kumar came there, shook hand with Tarun Kumar, enquired well being of Tarun Kumar and went away. After 10-15 minutes said Ram Babu came with three friends and all of them were having dandas in their hands and immediately on arrival there, those persons started beating Tarun Kumar and Om Prakash with dandas. Said Ram Babu and his friends had given dandas blows on head, hands, leg, foot and other body parts of Tarun Kumar and Om Prakash. Tarun Kumar became unconscious and fell down. Om Prakash ran away in injured condition. Some passerby called at number 100 and PCR vehicle took injured Tarun Kumar to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where Tarun Kumar also met his friend Digitally signed by GURVINDER Om Prakash. Ram Babu and his friends assaulted Tarun Kumar GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:47:14 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 2 / 23 and Om Prakash with intention to kill them. Since Tarun Kumar was getting medical treatment, so he could not give his statement earlier and gave his statement on 08/06/2019. SI Anil Kumar recorded tehrir and got the FIR registered for the offence under Section 308/34 IPC. At the instance of injured/complainant Tarun Kumar, SI Anil Kumar prepared site plan. No CCTV cameras were found installed in the vicinity of the place of incident. Even SI Anil Kumar could not locate any eye witness. Statements of witnesses in investigation were recorded. After transfer of SI Anil Kumar, investigation was handed over to SI Naresh Kumar. Search was conducted regarding accused Ram Babu but officers of investigating agency could not locate him. Non Bailable Warrants of accused Ram Babu were obtained from Magisterial Court. After transfer of SI Naresh Kumar, investigation was given to SI Sanjeev Kumar. SI Sanjeev Kumar recorded statement of injured Om Prakash. IO received information of arrest of accused Ram Babu on 17/08/2020 by ASI Mukesh in case FIR No. 371/2020, under Sections 186/353/307 IPC and under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Neb Sarai and that said accused had disclosed for offence of this case. SI Sanjeev Kumar enquired from accused Ram Babu and recorded his disclosure statement. Accused Ram Babu was arrested on 17/08/2020. Pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at the instance of accused Ram Babu. Other friends/stated offenders could not be located by the officers of investigating agency. Weapons of offence could not be recovered. Accused Ram Babu was got medically examined and produced in Magisterial Court and got sent to judicial custody.
Digitally Opinion on MLC of injured persons were obtained. Doctors signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:47:40 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 3 / 23 +0530 opined injury of injured Tarun Kumar as simple, caused by blunt object and injuries of injured Om Prakash as grievous, caused by blunt object. Accused Ram Babu was admitted to bail on 07/06/2021. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet for offence under Section 308/34 IPC was filed.
2. After compliance of the mandate of Section 207 Cr.P.C for supply of copies; the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magisterial Court as offence under Section 308 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
3. On 29/10/2021, my Ld. Predecessor framed charge against accused under Section 308/34 IPC, which was read over and explained to accused, who after understanding the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to connect the accused with the offence charged, prosecution had examined in all nine witnesses. Following are the (1) Chart for Witnesses Examined; (2) Chart for Exhibited Documents; with specified details:
Chart for Witnesses Examined Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No. PW1 HC Deepak Duty Officer PW2 ASI Mukesh Kumar Investigating Officer of case FIR No. 371/20, under Sections 186/353/307 IPC & Section 25/27 Arms Act in which accused was in his custody, who disclosed about his involvement in the present case.
Digitally PW3 Tarun Singhal Complainant/victim signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 4 / 23 2026.04.04 10:48:12 +0530 PW4 Dr. Vicky Patel Prepared MLC No. 500173844 Junior Resident Doctor dated 05/06/2019 of at AIIMS, Trauma injured/complainant Tarun Centre, New Delhi Kumar PW5 Dr. Aditya Vikram Prepared MLC No. 500173944 Junior Resident Doctor dated 05/06/2019 of Om Prakash, at AIIMS, Trauma injured Centre, New Delhi PW6 Om Prakash Sharma Injured and friend of complainant Tarun PW7 SI Naresh Kumar Second Investigating Officer PW8 Inspector (the then Sub Last Investigating Officer Inspector) Sanjeev Kumar PW9 Inspector (the then SI) First Investigating Officer Anil Kumar Chart for Exhibited Documents Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by Ex PW1/A Copy of FIR PW-1 and Ex PW1/B Endorsement on the rukka PW-9 Ex PW1/C Certificate under Section 65B of The Indian Evidence Act Ex PW2/A Disclosure statement of accused PW-2 Ex PW2/B Copies of documents of case FIR No. 371/2020, P.S Neb Sarai Ex PW3/A Complaint of complainant PW-3 and Ex PW3/B Site plan PW-9 Ex PW4/A Certified copy of MLC No. PW-4 500173844 of complainant Tarun Kumar Ex PW5/A MLC of injured Om Prakash Sharma PW-5 Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:48:38 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 5 / 23 Ex PW7/A Copy of application moved before PW-7 Magisterial Court for issuance of NBWs of accused Ram Babu Ex PW7/B Copy of order of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for issuance of NBWs of accused Ram Babu Ex PW8/A Disclosure statement of accused PW-8 Ex PW8/B Arrest memo of accused Ex PW8/C Pointing out memo of place of incident Ex PW8/D Request letter of SI Sanjeev Kumar to CMO, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi for providing opinion on the MLC of victim Ex PW8/E Request letter of SI Sanjeev Kumar to Head of department, Record Room, AIIMS for providing duplicate/certified copy of MLC No. 500173844 of Tarun Kumar Ex PW9/A Endorsement below complaint of PW-9 complainant
5. All incriminating evidence and material was put in the form of questions to accused by my Ld. Predecessor in his recorded statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein accused pleaded innocence and false implication.
6. Accused entered into his defence and examined one witness in defence evidence. Following is the Chart for Defence Witness Examined; with specified details:-
Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:49:07 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 6 / 23 Chart for Defence Witness Examined Prosecution Name of Description Witness No. Witness DW1 Mahender Distant relative/uncle of accused Kumar DW1 deposed of police persons having taken away the accused from Market near Village Gangapur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan on 16/08/2020. DW1 was not aware of the facts of present case and registered FIR.
7. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Gurbhej Singh Guraya, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State, Sh. Ayyub Ahmad, Ld. Counsel and Sh. Sheeraj Saeed, Proxy Counsel for accused and have perused the record including the charge sheet, documents, evidence and written submissions filed on behalf of accused and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forth.
8. Sh. Gurbhej Singh Guraya, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State prayed for conviction of accused for the offence charged on the following premise/grounds. Though injured PW6 Om Prakash Sharma resiled and did not support the case of prosecution and did not identify accused Ram Babu as offender; yet injured PW3 Tarun Singhal in his deposition has fully supported the case of prosecution and has correctly identified accused Ram Babu @ Raj to be the offender having sharing common intention with his friends and assaulted PW3 and PW6 for causing offence of culpable homicide not amounting to Digitally signed by murder, whereas his testimony is neither suffering from any GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:49:36 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 7 / 23 +0530 material contradictions, severe infirmities and/or inherent improbabilities nor is there anything borne thereof going to the root of the matter to check and shake the basic version and core of the prosecution case.
9. Sh. Ayyub Ahmad, Ld. Counsel and Sh. Sheeraj Saeed, Proxy Counsel for accused vehementally argued for acquittal of accused on the following premise/grounds. The lodging of the report/complaint/First Information Report is belated and there were ample opportunities for introduction of concocted facts and false implication of accused, whereas before examining Doctor, accused Ram Babu @ Raj was not named by any of the injured persons. Injured PW6 in his deposition elicited that place of incident was dark where there was no light and PW6 did not identify assailant/accused as the offender having assaulted any of the two injured persons PW3 and/or PW6 or having shared common intention with his other friends/accomplices. Despite admitted availability, no independent witness(es) of the alleged incident have been joined in support of the prosecution version. The version of PW6 Om Prakash Sharma makes the testimony of PW3 Tarun Singhal doubtful as PW6 Om Prakash Sharma stated that it was dark in the night at the place of incident at the time of incident whereas per contra PW3 Tarun Singhal stated that there was light at the place of incident. Photographs of accused Ram Babu were shown to PW3 Tarun Singhal by police due to which he was wrongly identified and falsely implicated in this case. No scientific evidence was collected by the officers of investigating agency. Blood stained clothes of injured were not obtained. No Digitally signed by weapon of offence was recovered. Scientific evidence was lost. GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:50:20 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 8 / 23 +0530 Oral ocular version of two injured persons are inter se contradictory, denting the case of prosecution and carving out premise for acquittal of accused.
10. PW1 HC Deepak testified that at about 11.15 pm on 08/06/2019 PW9 SI Anil Kumar produced rukka for registration of FIR at Police Station Neb Sarai and as a Duty Officer, he got the present case FIR Ex PW1/A registered through Computer Operator and made endorsement Ex PW1/B on the rukka, besides which he (PW1) issued certificate Ex PW1/C under Section 65B of The Indian Evidence Act.
11. PW2 ASI Mukesh Kumar testified that he was investigating officer of case FIR No. 371/2020, under Sections 186/353/307 IPC and under Section 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Neb Sarai and when accused Ram Babu @ Raj was in his custody; said accused disclosed on 17/08/2020 about his involvement in the present case in disclosure statement and then he informed IO of this case about it and gave copies of documents of his case to IO of this case.
12. PW4 Dr. Vicky Patel testified that on 05/06/2019 he was working as Junior Resident at AIIMS Trauma Centre when PCR official Mr. Virender brought PW3 Tarun Kumar to hospital with alleged history of assault and PW4 medically examined PW3 Tarun Kumar vide MLC No. 500173844 Ex PW4/A. PW4 observed following injuries on the person of PW3 injured/ victim/complainant Tarun Kumar:-
1. Abrasion over occipital scalp 3*4 cm, parietal scalp 4*4 cm; Digitally signed by
2. Laceration parietial scalp 3*1cm; GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 9 / 23 2026.04.04 10:50:51 +0530
3. Others punctured wound over RT-elbow 3*1cm;
4. Swelling over parietal scalp, occipital scalp.
PW4 advised for NCCT Head, CX Spine, E-Fast, CXR PXR right arm, elbow, forearm and gave call to Neuro Surgery, Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery, besides giving injection of Tetanus and of pain killer Voveron to PW3 Tarun Kumar. PW4 testified that he left his services of AIIMS Trauma Centre on 30/06/2019 and during the course of his employment there, he had not given opinion for the nature of injury and kind of weapon used; which was kept pending, whereas with respect to the injury to be grievous in nature and use of blunt weapon mentioned in Ex PW4/A; he was unable to tell, who had given such an opinion.
13. PW5 Dr. Aditya Vikram testified that on 05/06/2019 as Junior Resident in AIIMS Trauma Centre, he had examined injured PW6 Om Prakash brought to hospital by PCR official vide MLC Ex PW5/A. Ex PW5/A finds mention of alleged history of assault by known person near at Sangam Vihar. PW5 had observed following injuries on the person of PW6 Om Prakash:-
1. Laceration of sixe approx 4X.5 cm occipital, 6X.5x.5 cm occipitoparieatl area, 8X1X1cm frontoparietal area, parietal area 7X1X1cm;
2. Laceration of size approx LT temporal area 3X.5cm, LT forehead of size approx 2.5X.5 cm with swelling;
3. Others avulsion of nails of RT hand ring and middle finger.
Digitally signed by GURVINDER PW5 also advised for NCCT Head, E-Fast, CXR left GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:52:05 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 10 / 23 forearm wrist right hand, besides giving call to Neurosurgery, Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and also gave injections of Tetanus and Voveron to injured Om Prakash. Injuries of injured Om Prakash have been opined to be grievous, caused by blunt object in MLC Ex PW5/A.
14. PW7 SI Naresh Kumar testified that investigation was entrusted to him on 09/06/2020 and since accused Ram Babu was absconding, he moved an application Ex PW7/A for obtaining NBWs against accused Ram Babu before the Magisterial Court and vide order Ex PW7/B, Magisterial Court passed an order for issuance of NBWs of accused Ram Babu. After transfer from Police Station Neb Sarai to Security Rashtrapati Bhawan, he handed over the file to MHC (R).
15. The case of prosecution hinges on the ocular evidence of material witnesses complainant/victim/injured PW3 Tarun Singhal and injured PW6 Om Prakash Sharma; besides the testimonies of first Investigating Officer PW9 Inspector (the then SI) Anil Kumar and the last Investigating Officer PW8 Inspector (the then SI) Sanjeev Kumar.
16. To base the conviction of accused Ram Babu @ Raj on interested testimonies of injured and Investigating Officers; such testimonies must inspire confidence, need to be reliable, cogent, trustworthy and should be free from severe infirmities, inherent improbabilities and material contradictions going to the root of the matter to check and shake the basic version and core of the prosecution case. Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:52:32 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 11 / 23
17. In 2008 CRI. L. J. 3061, Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, Apex Court held that:
"Coming to applicability of the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of large number of other co- accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the Court has to carefully screen the evidence. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction in India, nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366).
Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also Digitally be acquitted. It is always open to a Court signed by GURVINDER to differentiate the accused who had been GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 12 / 23 10:52:59 +0530 acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead-stop. The witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sahrab s/s Belli Nayata and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 3 SCC 751, and Ugar Ahir and others v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277). An attempt has to be made to in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwieolae Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15; and Balaka Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki Digitally signed by and another, AIR 1981 SC 1390, normal GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 13 / 23 2026.04.04 10:53:24 +0530 discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and these are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
18. In the case of Thulia Kali vs State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1973 SC 501; Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that:-
"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first Digitally signed information report should be by GURVINDER satisfactorily explained." GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:53:47 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 14 / 23
19. PW6/Injured Om Prakash Sharma somersaulted in his deposition before the Court from his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C given to Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. PW6 testified that on one late night in the year 2019 he (PW6) was walking with his friend PW3 Tarun Kumar in the street as there was cut off electricity power in the area and reached at about 1/1.30 am (night) in Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, when PW3 Tarun met someone and a commotion had happened between them. After sometime 3-4 boys came there armed with dandas and they attacked PW6 Om Prakash Sharma and PW3 Tarun. PW6 received injuries on his head and fell down and became little bit unconscious. PW6 also stated that those assailants gave beatings to PW3 Tarun also with dandas and ran away, after which PW3 also fell down and become unconscious. PW6 categorically stated that at the place of incident it was dark and he became little bit unconscious, so he cannot identify the assailants. Since PW6 Om Prakash Sharma did not identify accused Ram Babu to be amongst assailants, who assaulted with dandas on the person of PW6 Om Prakash Sharma and PW3 Tarun, causing injuries to them; Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State cross examined PW6 Om Prakash Sharma; but to no avail and PW6 stood his ground, saying that it was dark at the time of incident and he could not identify the assailants, causing injuries to his person and on the person of PW3 Tarun. PW6 categorically denied of the fact of not identifying accused Ram Babu due to amicable settlement or having being won over by accused.
Digitally signed by
20. PW3 Tarun Singhal testified that on the intervening GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 15 / 23 10:54:08 +0530 night of 04/05.06.2019 at midnight due to failure of electricity power, he (PW3) with his friend PW6 Om Prakash Sharma were roaming near Asthal Mandir, Gali No. 15 and were gossiping. Meanwhile accused Ram Babu, earlier known to him (PW3), came there and exchanged greetings and shook hands with him and left away. After 10-15 minutes accused Ram Babu with his other friends, all having dandas in their hands came towards PW3 Tarun Singhal and PW6 Om Prakash and started beating PW3 and PW6 by dandas on head, hands, leg, foot and other body parts. PW6 Om Prakash Sharma ran away in injured condition. PW3 fell down and became unconscious. Someone had called at 100 number. Police came there. PW3 was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre. PW6 was also admitted there. PW3 was treated in the hospital. Later on statement Ex PW3/A of PW3 was recorded. At instance of PW3, site plan Ex PW3/B was prepared by police. In cross examination, PW3 elicited that he had moved from the spot in critical condition and reached about 200 meters and knocked door of his known person Raju, who stopped the PCR van and when the PCR had come, family members of PW3 had reached there. PW3 with his brother were shifted to hospital by PCR and at that time PW3 was unconscious. PW3 stated that he regained consciousness on the next day and he had disclosed the name of assailant to Doctor also. PW3 remained in the hospital for 2-3 days. MLC Ex PW4/A of injured PW3 and other medical treatment papers of PW3 Tarun Singhal placed on record do not find mention of name of assailant having been told by injured Tarun Singhal to examining Doctors, whereas the other treatment papers of AIIMS Trauma Centre bear stay of injured Digitally signed by Tarun Singhal there upto 18:50 hours on 06/05/2019. On record GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:54:39 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 16 / 23 of this case neither Investigating Agency nor injured PW3 Tarun Singhal had placed any other medical treatment paper(s) of PW3 for receiving of treatment from any other hospital after his stay in AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment upto 6.50 pm on 06/05/2019. PW3 in cross examination also elicited that neither he (PW3) nor his brother had called the police from hospital after he regained consciousness. Even when PW3 reached at his home, police was not called by either PW3 or his brother. It is the version of PW3 that he alongwith family members visited Police Station for recording of his statement, which was so recorded on 08/06/2019 in the late evening i.e., more than 3 ½ days later to the time and date of incident. PW3 in cross examination also elicited that PW6 Om Prakash Sharma visited the hospital on the next day of occurrence and of his admission in the hospital. Also is the version of PW3 in cross examination that when he (PW3) with his family members visited the Police Station for recording his statement, then PW6 Om Prakash was accompanying PW3 and same day police also recorded statement of PW6. Blood stained clothes of PW3 were not handed over to police and PW3 says that same were thrown in the hospital. PW3 in cross examination candidly admitted that he had taken liquor on the day of incident. Besides that PW3 Traun Singhal in cross examination elicited that though police did not call him to police station to identify accused Ram Babu but police had shown him the photographs of accused Ram Babu. It is also the version of PW3 that it was not dark at the place of incident, which was vacant plot of 150 square yards, but there was street light, which was working at that time. Site plan Ex PW3/B prepared by first Digitally signed by GURVINDER Investigating Officer PW9, the then SI Anil Kumar, at the GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:55:05 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 17 / 23 instance of PW3 Tarun Singhal finds no mention of any source of electricity in the vicinity of place of incident in aforesaid vacant plot, depicted at portion A of Ex PW3/B since no pole of electricity nearby it has been shown. Infact the entire site plan Ex PW3/B does not show any electricity pole in the entire Street No. 15, Sangam Vihar nearby the place of incident; whereby also is mentioned forest area on the side of the residential area. Site plan Ex PW3/B infact supports the version of PW6 for the place of incident to be dark at that time and there was no source of light there.
21. PW9 the then SI Anil Kumar testified of ASI Ram Swaroop of Police Station Tigri having come at evening time on 07/06/2019 at Police Station Neb Sarai and having told him that on 05/06/2019 a quarrel had taken place at vacant plot near Pahari, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar and injured were taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital from where after call, said ASI Ram Swaroop had collected the MLCs of injured Tarun and injured Om Prakash but when later on ASI Ram Swaroop came to know that place of incident fell under the jurisdiction of Police Station Neb Sarai, so he (ASI Ram Swaroop) came at Police Station Neb Sarai and gave these MLCs of injured Tarun and Om Prakash to PW9. Thereafter PW9 reached at the home of injured Tarun but did not find him there and returned back to Police Station. On 08/06/2019 PW3 came in Police Station and gave statement Ex PW3/A, after which PW9 made endorsement Ex PW9/A and gave rukka to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. At the instance of injured PW3 Tarun, PW9 prepared site plan Ex Digitally signed PW3/B after going to the place of incident. by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:55:38 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 18 / 23
22. PW8 then then SI Sanjeev Kumar testified that he joined injured Om Prakash on 14/08/2020 and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW8 also stated that ASI Mukesh informed him on 17/08/2020 about accused Ram Babu @ Raj being wanted in the present case and said Ram Babu @ Raj was arrested in case FIR No. 371/2020, under Sections 186/353/307 IPC and under Sections 25/27 Arms Act. Copies of documents with disclosure statement of Ram Babu @ Raj were handed over by ASI Mukesh to PW8. PW8 recorded disclosure statement Ex PW8/A of accused Ram Babu @ Raj, interrogated accused. PW8 also arrested accused Ram Babu @ Raj vide memo Ex PW8/B and prepared pointing out memo Ex PW8/C of place of incident, alleging accused took him there. Despite making efforts for search of weapon i.e., danda, same could not be traced by him and his other officers assisting him. PW8 submitted MLC of injured Om Prakash Sharma for obtaining result vide request Ex PW8/D. PW8 also submitted his request Ex PW8/E for providing duplicate MLC of injured Tarun and other documents.
23. From amongst the deposition of two injured persons in the same incident; two versions are emanating. First version is borne out from elicited deposition of injured PW3 Tarun Singhal implicating accused for sharing common intention with his other friends/assailants and for having assaulted on various body parts including head of injured PW3 and injured PW6. The other version emanating from deposition of other injured PW6 Om Prakash Sharma is exonerating accused Ram Babu @ Raj by not Digitally identifying him to be one of the assailants, nor sharing common signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 19 / 23 2026.04.04 10:56:04 +0530 intention in causing injuries on the various body parts including head of injured PW3 and PW6 by weapons i.e., dandas. Besides it, it is also the categorical version of PW6 that at the place of incident, after mid night, there was no source of light. Site plan Ex PW3/B corroborates the version of PW6 on the facet of source of light as no electricity pole is depicted there at any place, whereas as per PW9 first Investigating Officer, Ex PW3/B site plan was prepared at the instance of injured PW3 Tarun Singhal on visit to the place of incident. Investigating Agency has also not placed on record any documents of treatment received by PW3 after his stay from 6.50 pm onwards on 06/05/2019. It is also admitted case of injured PW3 that before lodging his report Ex PW3/A with the police, he had been at his home with his brother and family members, besides which as per deposition of PW3, even his brother had arrived with family members when PCR had come at the place of incident and PCR had taken PW3 as well as his brother to hospital. As per PW3, he was unconscious when PCR took him to hospital but he regained consciousness on the next day. Neither PW3 nor his brother informed the police for making complaint/lodging of report, detailing the incident and the assailants responsible for it. Fact of the matter brings into fore that there was ample time of few days with PW3 Tarun Singhal to deliberate, consult his brother and other family members and there was every scope of introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. In this fact of the matter, delay in lodging of First Information Report by PW3 Tarun Digitally signed by GURVINDER Singhal gains importance as it was an extremely vital and GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:56:34 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 20 / 23 valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the ocular version adduced at the trial by PW3. There was no prompt lodging of report to police by PW3 or even PW6 in respect to commission of offence and the names of the assailants and the roles played by them as well as at the place of incident. The delay in lodging of First Information Report in this case has resulted in embellishments which may be creature of afterthought. Danger has crept in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.
24. When read as whole, the testimony of complainant/victim/injured PW3 can be classified in category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness as per categorization of the witnesses in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614.
25. The testimony of sole supporting interested material witness complainant/victim/injured PW3 Tarun Singhal is embedded with severe infirmities and material contradictions, as stated above. It is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence of PW3 in toto. (See Zwieolae Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15; and Balaka Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962); Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 21 / 23 2026.04.04 10:56:59 +0530 more so when per contra to deposition of PW3 Tarun Singhal, entirely different version of same incident has been testified by other injured PW6 Om Prakash Sharma, fully exonerating arraigned accused Ram Babu @ Raj by stating that it was dark at the place of incident in the night and accused Ram Babu @ Raj was not the assailant, nor was sharing common intention with others/not arrested offenders nor had caused injuries by danda(s) on the person of PW3 Tarun Singhal and PW6 Om Prakash Sharma.
26. Relying upon the law laid and elicited in the preceding paragraphs, it would be extremely hazardous to base the conviction of arraigned accused on the testimony of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable testimony of sole examined material interested witness complainant/victim/injured PW3 Tarun Singhal in the back drop of entirely contrary deposition of other injured PW6 Om Prakash Sharma. Prosecution has not been successful in proving its case against accused Ram Babu @ Raj beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Ram Babu @ Raj is accordingly held not guilty and acquitted for the offence charged.
27. Bail bond of accused Ram Babu @ Raj stands cancelled and his surety stands discharged. Original documents, if any, be released to the rightful owner(s) after getting the endorsement, if any, cancelled.
28. Accused Ram Babu @ Raj is directed to furnish bail bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months. Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:57:34 +0530 SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 22 / 23
29. After due compliance, file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by GURVINDERAnnounced in the open Court GURVINDER PAL SINGH today i.e., 4th April, 2026 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.04.04 10:57:53 +0530 (Gurvinder Pal Singh) Principal District & Sessions Judge South District, Saket Court, New Delhi (DK) SC No. 151-2021 State vs. Ram Babu @ Raj P.S Neb Sarai Page 23 / 23