Delhi District Court
State vs Ratan Singh Etc on 28 April, 2026
CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANSHUL SINGHAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLWT02-000760-2014
Cr. Case: 61242/2016
FIR No.: 7/2014
PS: Moti Nagar
U/s.: 147/323/325/341/452/34 IPC
State
versus
(i) Sanjay Tyagi
S/o Sh. Ratan Singh Tyagi
R/o Village Ukhralsi PS Murad Nagar
Distt. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
(ii) Gaurav Tyagi
S/o Sh. Rajender Tyagi
R/o WZ-108/1, Basai Darapur,
Moti Nagar, Delhi.
(iii) Bhushan Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o WZ-108/1, Basai Darapur, Delhi.
... Accused persons
JUDGMENT
Date of Commission of Offence : 02.01.2014
Date of Filing of Chargesheet : 24.12.2014
Date of Framing of Charge : 14.08.2015
Plea of Accused persons : Not Guilty
Date when judgment was reserved : 11.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.04.2026
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 24
CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014
Final Order : Convicted u/s. 147, 452, 323 & 325 r/w. 34 of IPC Acquitted u/s. 341 IPC.
Argued By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Avinash Kumar Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
Ms. Riya Sethi and Sh. Sudhanshu Kathuria, Ld. Counsels for complainant.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present case arising out of FIR No.07/2014 PS Moti Nagar.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that on 02.01.2014 at about 08:30 PM at H.No.WZ-499/1A, Gali No.3, Basai Darapur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar, all the accused persons as members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly entered into the aforesaid premises of the victims, after making preparation for causing hurt, voluntarily restrained them from proceedings in a particular direction and gave beatings to them, which resulted in simple hurt to Sh. Vinod Tyagi, Sh. Umang and Sh. Raj Kumar and also grievous hurt to Smt. Babita.
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL
3. Chargesheet was filed against the accused persons on 24.12.2014. Cognizance was taken by the court on 12.01.2015. The accused persons appeared before the court on 16.02.2015 and copy of chargesheet was supplied to them on the same day.
4. After due compliance of Section 207 CrPC, arguments on charge were heard, and charge for offences u/s. 147/323/325/341/452/34 IPC was framed against all the accused FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 persons on 14.08.2015 by this court, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Joint statement of accused persons namely Sanjay Tyagi, Bhushan Kumar and Gaurav Tyagi u/s. 294 CrPC was recorded on 28.07.2025.
5. During trial, accused Ratan Singh and accused Ved Prakash Tyagi expired and accordingly proceedings against them were abated vide orders dated 22.07.2022 and 06.02.2016.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution examined nine witnesses i.e. PW-1, Smt. Babita Tyagi, PW-2, Sh. Umang Tyagi, PW-3, Sh. Vinod Kumar Tyagi, PW-4, Retd. SI Hari Om, PW-5 Sh. Raj Kumar, PW-6 Ct. Jitender, PW-7, Dr. S K Kakran, PW-8, SI Sita Ram and PW-9, Retired Ct. Lilu Ram. Further, these witnesses placed the following evidence on record:
S. No. Document Exhibit No.
1. Statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A
2. Seizure memo of weapon Ex.PW1/B
3. Site plan Ex.PW3/A
4. Arrest memo of Ratan Singh Ex.PW4/B
5. Arrest memo of Ved Prakash Ex.PW4/C
6. Personal search memo of accused Ratan Singh Ex.PW4/E
7. Personal search memo of accused Ved Prakash Ex.PW4/F
8. Arrest memo of accused Sanjay Tyagi Ex.PW4/G
9. Arrest memo of accused Gaurav Tyagi Ex.PW4/H
13. Arrest memo of accused Bhushan Kumar Ex.PW4/J
14. Personal search memo of accused Bhushan Kumar Ex.PW4/K
12. MLC No.3441 Ex.PW7/A
13. Copy of FIR Ex.PW8/A
(OSR)
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 24
CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014
14. Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW8/B
15. Personal search memo of accused Gaurav Tyagi Ex.PW9/A
16. Personal search memo of accused Sanjay Tyagi Ex.PW9/B
17. Case property Ex.P1 & Ex.P2
7. Further, Ld. APP for the state has placed reliance on the following documents which were admitted by the accused persons namely (i) Sanjay Tyagi, (ii) Bhushan Kumar & (iii) Gaurav Tyagi (without admitting the contents thereof, although not disputing the genuineness) in their statement u/s. 294 CrPC:
S. No. Document Exhibit No.
1. DD No.55A dated 02.01.2014 Ex.A1
2. MLC No.7/14 dated 02.01.2014 Ex.A2
3. MLC No.9/14 dated 02.01.2014 Ex.A3
4. MLC No.8/14 dated 02.01.2014 Ex.A4
8. PW-1, Smt. Babita Tyagi, PW-2, Sh. Umang Tyagi, PW-3, Sh. Vinod Kumar Tyagi and PW-5, Sh. Raj Kumar are all victims in the present case and they have deposed against the accused persons regarding commission of various offences by the accused persons on the date of incident i.e., 02.01.2014 at 8.30 pm. They have also deposed regarding their medical examination, and recording of their statements by the police. PW-1 has also deposed regarding seizure of case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. PW-3 has identified the case property before the court. They have correctly identified all the accused persons before the court, except accused Ved Prakash against whom proceedings were already abated. The witnesses were duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and discharged.
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014
9. PW-4, Retd. SI Hari Om is a police official and first IO in the present matter. He has deposed that he received intimation about the alleged offence vide DD 55 A dated 02.01.2014 and he went to the spot of the incident along with Ct. Lilu. He has further deposed that on reaching the place of the incident he advised the injured persons to go to the nearby ESI Hospital and also recorded the statement of the complainant at the hospital. He has further deposed regarding collection of MLC, registration of FIR, arrest of the accused persons and conduct of their personal search. He also deposed regarding seizure of case property, preparation of site plan, depositing of case property with MHC(M) and recording of statements of other injured persons u/s.161 CrPC. PW-4 has identified the case property before the court. He has correctly identified all the accused persons before the court, except accused Ved Prakash and Ratan Singh against whom proceedings were already abated. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and discharged.
10. PW-6, Ct. Jitender is a police official and has deposed regarding joining of the present investigation along with IO ASI Hari Om. He has further deposed regarding surrender of accused Bhushan Kumar, his interrogation, arrest and personal search by the IO. The witness correctly identified the accused Bhushan Kumar. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and discharged.
11. PW-7, Dr. S K Kakran has deposed regarding preparation of MLC No.3441 by him in his own handwriting and referring FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 the patient for orthopedic opinion. Opportunity to cross-examine the said witness was given but the same was not availed by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. PW-8, SI Sita Ram is DO in the present matter and has deposed regarding registration of present case FIR and endorsement on the rukka. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and discharged.
13. PW-9, Retired Ct. Lilu Ram was the police official in the present matter and has deposed regarding receiving of DD No.55A regarding scuffle at WZ 499/1A Basai Darapur. He has deposed on the same lines as the IO, however during cross examination on every question asked to the witness, the witness has stated that he does not remember. The witness correctly identified accused Gaurav Tyagi and Sanjay Tyagi. After cross- examination, the witness was discharged.
14. Since no other witnesses as per the prosecution list of witnesses were remaining to be examined, hence, on submissions of Ld. Substitute APP for State, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 27.09.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s. 313 CrPC
15. Statements of the accused persons namely Sanjay Tyagi, Gaurav Tyagi and Bhushan Kumar u/s. 313 CrPC were recorded on 20.11.2025 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to them. All the accused persons stated that they are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated. They further stated that they were not present at the place of the incident at the time of the alleged incident. They further stated that there is a property FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 dispute between accused Ratan Singh(since deceased) and Ram Singh, i.e., the father-in-law of the complainant, due to which the present case was filed despite there having been no incident. They further stated that accused Ratan Singh(since deceased) and accused Ved Prakash(since deceased) went to the house of the complainant for settlement talks however they were beaten by Vinod Tyagi. They have further stated that no incident as alleged has ever taken place.
16. All the accused persons stated that they do not wish to lead defence evidence.
17. Final arguments were heard on 11.02.2026. During final arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant was permitted to assist Ld. APP for the State in terms of section 301 and 302 CrPC.
FINAL ARGUMENTS Ld. APP for the State
18. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as testimony of any of the witnesses has not been impeached by the accused persons. He has further submitted that all the ingredients of offences under consideration are made out in the present case.
19. He has further stated that the complainant and other injured persons have remained consistent in all the material particulars and have duly deposed against the accused persons. He has further submitted that nothing could be brought out by the accused persons in their cross-examination of the witnesses. He has argued the offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt on FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be punished for the said offences.
Ld. Counsel for the Accused Persons
20. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel submits that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police and the complainant due to a property dispute between accused Ratan Singh (since deceased) and father-in-law of the complainant.
21. It is further submitted that there is no public witness in present case who has witnessed the alleged incident, although, the incident is stated to have happened in the verandah of the house of the complainant.
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that there are various contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution which make them unreliable witnesses. All the contradictions as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused have been dealt with hereinafter.
23. Ld. Counsel for accused has further submitted that during cross-examination, PW-9 could not tell anything and to each question, the witness kept saying that he does not remember.
24. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that there are material deficiencies in the case of the prosecution. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be acquitted of the said offences.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
25. I have carefully heard the submissions made by Ld. APP FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through all the records at hand and testimony of the witnesses.
26. In the present case, the date of the incident is stated to be 02.01.2014 and the time of the incident is stated to be around 08:30 PM. The incident is stated to have happened at WZ-499/1A, Gali No.3, Basai Darapur, Delhi.
27. In the initial police complaint, it is alleged that on the above-stated date, time and place, accused persons gave several beatings to the complainant Ms. Babita Tyagi, her husband Sh. Vinod Tyagi and her son Sh. Umang Tyagi. It is further alleged that when the complainant ran outside the house to seek help, then the accused persons stopped her and gave beatings to her using sticks, due to which she suffered serious injuries. It is further alleged that her brother-in-law Sh. Raj Kumar came to the spot by hearing the loud noise, however, he was also beaten up. It is further alleged that one of the walls on the front of the house of the complainant was also demolished by the accused persons.
28. Firstly, I deem it appropriate to deal with the submission on behalf of the accused persons that the testimony of PW-9 should not be relied upon by the court.
28.1. In respect of the testimony of PW-9, since the witness has repeatedly stated during cross-examination that he does not remember anything, hence, it cannot be said that he has been subjected to proper cross-examination or that a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness has been given to the accused persons. Accordingly, I do not deem it appropriate to rely on the testimony of the said witness on any aspect.
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 28.2. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that even if the testimony of PW-9 is not being considered, then also all the facts in respect of which PW-9 had given his testimony, have also been deposed about by PW-4 i.e. IO Retired SI Hari Om. He has further relied on Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act and has submitted that the evidence of PW-4 should suffice and there is no need to lead evidence of multiple witnesses on a given point. 28.3. In this regard, this court places reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Munna Lal vs. State of U.P., AIR 2023 SC 634, wherein Hon'ble Court has held that it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. It is also been held that it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to conviction. 28.4. I have heard the rival submissions on this aspect. I have gone through the testimony of both PW-4 and PW-9. PW-9, Retd. Ct. Lilu Ram, merely accompanied the IO Retd. SI Hari Om, who has been examined as PW-4 by the prosecution. PW-9 has not provided any evidence beyond what has already been stated by PW-4. In view of the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs, the testimony of PW-9 is rejected in its entirety. However, the prosecution is permitted to prove the documents referred to in PW-9's deposition through the testimony of PW-4.
29. It has been argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter by the complainant and other injured persons due to property disputes pending between both the parties.
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 29.1. In this regard, reliance is placed by this court on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramashish Ray v. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Court that previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. 29.2. It is a settled position of law that the court cannot disregard the testimonies of the witnesses merely because of existence of property disputes. However, it is also true that due to existence of property disputes between the parties, the testimonies of the complainant as well as that of other injured persons require deeper and careful examination by the court.
30. It has also been argued that all the witnesses in the present case are interested witnesses and there are no independent witnesses in the present matter. Ld. APP for State has relied on Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, and it is stated that multiple number of witnesses should not be called, if the testimony of single reliable witness is trustworthy
31. In this regard, reliance is placed by this court on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nand Lal and Ors. vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 470, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as follows in respect to appreciation of evidence of interested witnesses:
"32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence of interested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured witnesses. This Court, in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, [1957] SCR 981 has observed thus:
"11. ......Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial......"
33. It could thus be seen that in the category of "wholly reliable" witness, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to press for conviction on the basis of the testimony of such a witness. In case of "wholly unreliable" witness, again, there is no difficulty, inasmuch as no conviction could be made on the basis of oral testimony provided by a "wholly unreliable" witness. The real difficulty comes in case of the third category of evidence which is partly reliable and partly unreliable. In such cases, the court is required to be circumspect and separate the chaff from the grain, and seek further corroboration from reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."
32. Thus, in view of the above-quoted judgment, and considering that all the witnesses in the present case are also interested witnesses, I am of the opinion that the testimonies of all these witnesses require detailed examination and it is to be seen if the witnesses are wholly reliable or wholly unreliable or partly reliable and partly unreliable.
33. Before examination of the testimonies of the complainant, I deem it fit to firstly discuss certain other arguments taken by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, including their plea of alibi.
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014
34. It has been argued that PW-3 Sh. Vinod Kumar Tyagi has testified before the court that the accused persons are not his relatives, which is contrary to admitted facts by the complainant and PW-5 and PW-3 has deposed falsely in this regard. I have perused the statement of the witnesses.
34.1. It is not in dispute that the accused persons are related to the husband of the complainant. However, in the considered view of this Court, the entire testimony of PW-3 cannot be discarded solely on the ground that he did not correctly depose about his relationship with the accused. This aspect, though inconsistent with the admitted position, is peripheral to the core issue under adjudication. The primary focus of the trial is the alleged incident dated 02.01.2014, and not the precise nature of familial ties between the parties.
34.2. A witness's evidence is to be assessed in its entirety, and minor discrepancies or omissions on collateral matters do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the witness on material aspects. Therefore, unless the inconsistency directly affects the substratum of the prosecution's case, it would be inappropriate to reject PW-3's testimony in toto on this ground alone.
35. Further, it has also been argued that during testimony of PW-2 he has stated that his college hours are from 08:00 AM to 02:00 PM and since he must have been attending his classes, hence, he could not have been present at the time of the incident. In this regard, it is to be noted that time of the incident is 08:30 PM and not 08:30 AM. There is nothing on record to suggest that the witness was attending classes at the time of the alleged FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 incident. Accordingly, the present argument is not sustainable in view of the facts of the present matter.
36. It has also been argued that, at the time of the incident, only accused Ratan Singh (since deceased) and accused Ved Prakash (since deceased) were present and had gone to the complainant's house, while the remaining three accused neither visited the premises nor were present at the scene. 36.1. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that this defence was raised for the first time in the statements of the accused persons u/s. 313 CrPC. Notably, no suggestion was put to any of the injured persons during their cross-examination that only two accused were present and that the others were absent from the scene. This omission weakens the credibility of the defence version, as material suggestions are expected to be put to prosecution witnesses to afford them an opportunity to respond. 36.2. It is further well settled that a plea of alibi, as contemplated u/s. 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, must be affirmatively established by the accused and cannot be presumed. If an accused claims to have been elsewhere at the relevant time, such fact lies within his special knowledge, and by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving the same rests upon him.
36.3. In the present case, the accused persons have neither led any defence evidence to substantiate their claim nor have they been able to show it from the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The accused persons have thus failed to discharge the burden of proving their plea of alibi.
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014
37. I shall now examine the testimonies of complainant as well as other injured persons.
37.1. PW-1, i.e., Ms. Babita Tyagi, who is the complainant has testified before the court that all the accused persons entered her house and immediately after entering, the accused persons gave stick/ danda blows and hammer blows to her. It is also stated that thereafter the accused persons dragged her, her son, and her husband outside the house and then she made loud commotion and her brother-in-law came to the spot and he was also beaten. It is also stated that the accused persons damaged the front wall of the house of the complainant.
37.2. PW-2 i.e. the son of the complainant Sh. Aman Tyagi has testified before the court that all the accused persons entered her house and immediately after entering, he and his parents were beaten using lathi/ danda. It is also stated that thereafter his mother i.e. the complainant was dragged outside and she was also given beatings outside the house. It is further stated that his mother made loud commotion, on which public persons gathered on the spot and his uncle also came, who was also beaten using lathi/ danda. It is also stated that the accused persons damaged the right side wall of the house of the complainant. 37.3. PW-3, i.e., Husband of the complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Tyagi has deposed before the court that all the accused persons entered her house and immediately after entering, the accused persons gave beatings using nightstick/ danda, subbal/fali and they were also carrying a hammer. It is also stated that thereafter accused persons dragged his wife outside. It is also FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 stated that when he and his son tried to save his wife then the accused persons also caused injuries to him and his son. The witness has also deposed regarding injuries given to his brother. It is also stated that the accused persons damaged wall of the house of the complainant.
37.4. PW-5 i.e. the brother-in-law of the complainant Sh. Raj Kumar has deposed that he was passing from the spot of the incident, when he heard out a loud commotion. On reaching the spot he saw that the accused persons are beating the complainant, her son and her husband. He has further stated that when he intervened, he was also given beatings and a brick blow was inflicted on his head. It is further stated that the accused persons were carrying iron pipes in their hands.
38. From the overall examination of testimonies of all four witnesses, it appears that the witnesses are consistent on several aspects and they are also inconsistent on other aspects. Thus, the evidence given by the witnesses falls under the third category, i.e., partly reliable and partly unreliable.
39. However, in this regard, it is to be noted that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India. In India, it is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff and to identify the truthful statements of a witness.
40. In this regard, reliance is placed by this court on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as under:
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 "51. ... In essence, prayer is to apply the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. This plea is clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff.
Where the chaff can be separated from the 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 the 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 liars. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance 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 Ali v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 366 : 1957 Cri LJ 550] ) 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 be acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460 : 1956 Cri LJ 827] .) The doctrine is a dangerous one, specially in India, for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because the 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. 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 FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 256] .) An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate the truth from falsehood, because the grain and the 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 to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. [(1952) 2 SCC 560 : AIR 1954 SC 15 : 1954 Cri LJ 230] and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 511 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 601 : AIR 1975 SC 1962] .) As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 593 : AIR 1981 SC 1390] normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those 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."
(Emphasis Supplied)
41. The following principles emerge in view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in afore- mentioned matter:
41.1. The maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India. It is only a rule of caution, and not a binding rule of law. 41.2. Evidence need not be rejected entirely just because a witness is partly unreliable. The courts may accept truthful parts FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 and reject false ones. However, the courts have a duty to "separate the grain from the chaff", i.e., distinguish truth from falsehood within testimony.
41.3. Witnesses cannot be branded liars merely because of some inconsistencies, exaggerations, or embellishments. If truth and falsehood are separable, courts may rely on the truthful portion, however, if truth and falsehood are inseparably mixed, the entire evidence may be discarded.
41.4. Minor discrepancies, due to memory lapses, perception errors, or shock, do not affect credibility, however, material discrepancies can undermine the reliability of the evidence.
42. In the facts of the present matter, I find that the unreliable part of the testimony of the witnesses is clearly separable from the reliable part of the testimony of the witnesses.
43. At first the contradictions and the unreliable part of the testimony of the witnesses should be dealt with. 43.1. One major point of contradiction is the allegation whether the complainant, her son and her husband were dragged outside the house or not. Where PW-1 states that all three of them were dragged outside the house, PW-2 and PW-3 state that only PW-1 was dragged outside the house. Interestingly, in the initial police complaint, there is no such allegation of dragging, rather it is stated that when she went out of the house to save herself and made loud commotion (chillai), then the accused persons stopped her and gave beatings to her. Further, no drag marks are seen in the MLC of any of the injured persons including the complainant which could corroborate the allegations in respect of dragging of FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 19 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 complainant or any of the other injured persons. Thus, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence u/s. 341 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
43.2. It has been argued that no wall was demolished by the accused persons. In this regard, it is to be noted that PW-1 has stated that the front side wall had been demolished, PW-2 has stated that the right-side wall was demolished, PW-5 has not deposed anything about the demolition of the wall and PW-3 has not specified which side wall of the house was demolished.
Further in the chargesheet, it is written by the IO that one wall in the street in front of the house was demolished and he has not testified regarding any wall of the house of the complainant. Thus, it is apparent that in respect of the alleged demolition of a wall in the house of the complainant, there are inconsistent and contradictory testimonies of the witnesses. Further, the report of IO does not corroborate the version of the complainant. It is also to be noted that no corroborating evidence in the form of photographs of damaged wall has been placed on record. Thus, the allegation of demolition or damage of the wall of the house of the complainant is not proved. However, it is to be noted that the accused persons have not been charged for commission of offence u/s. 427 IPC.
43.3. Thus, the unreliable part and contradictory part of the testimony of the witnesses is only in respect of offences u/s. 341 and 427 IPC and not in respect of other offences.
44. It is to be noted that the testimony of PW-1 has been FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 20 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 recorded on 06.05.2017, i.e. after more than three years of the commission of the alleged offence. Further, testimony of PW-2 has been recorded on 06.05.2017, i.e. after more than three years of the commission of the alleged offence. Further, testimony of PW-3 has been recorded on 05.08.2017 and 06.09.2019, i.e. after more than three and a half years of the commission of the alleged offence. Further, testimony of PW-5 has been recorded on 06.09.2019, i.e. after more than five and a half years of the commission of the alleged offence. As such, minor inconsistencies are bound to creep in the evidence of the witnesses as a result of the lapse of time. No person can be expected to remember all the details to the exactitude. In my considered opinion, apart from the contradictions as discussed above, there are no other material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses.
45. All the three witnesses, i.e., PW-1 to PW-3 are consistent in their testimony that the accused persons had entered their house and have caused them injuries including grievous injuries to the complainant. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 are also consistent in their testimony in respect of the injuries caused by the accused persons to the brother-in-law of the complainant, i.e., PW-5, Sh. Raj Kumar.
46. The injuries suffered by the witnesses, i.e., PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 are also corroborated from their MLCs placed on record, i.e., Ex.A4, Ex.A3, Ex.A2 and Ex.PW7/A. As per MLC of the complainant Ms. Babita Tyagi, i.e., Ex.A4, complainant is stated to have suffered grievous injuries as a result FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 21 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 of the incident and remaining three injured persons, i.e., Sh. Umang Tyagi, Sh. Vinod Tyagi and Sh. Rajkumar are stated to have suffered simple injuries.
47. The preparation made by the accused persons for causing hurt can be discerned from the recovery of the weapons used for causing hurt and grievous hurt to the injured persons which the accused persons had brought alongwith them.
48. Further Section 147 IPC punishes commission of offence of rioting. Section 146 IPC defines rioting as, "whenever force of violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or any member thereof, in prosecution of common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of offence of rioting".
49. Unlawful assembly is defined u/s. 141 IPC. It is an assembly of five or more persons with the common object to commit one of the five acts as mentioned in the said section. The third clause states, "to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence".
50. In the facts of the present mater, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that a total of five persons had entered to the house of the complainant, including the three accused persons in respect of which the present judgment is being delivered and two accused persons, who have already expired during the pendency of the trial and proceedings against them have already been abated. Further, prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed the offences of house trespass, voluntarily causing simple hurt, and voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 22 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014
51. The common object and the common intention of the accused persons can be easily infer from their joint acts as narrated by the prosecution witnesses.
52. In view of the above discussion and in view of the testimony of the witnesses, all the ingredients of offences u/s. 147, 452, 323 & 325 IPC r/w. Section 34 IPC are made out in the present case and the prosecution has been able to prove commission of the said offences by the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
53. The prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the five accused persons including the three in respect of which the present judgment is being delivered, in furtherance of common intention and with common object voluntarily caused simple hurt to Sh. Vinod Kumar Tyagi, Sh. Umang Tyagi and Sh. Raj Kumar, that they voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ms. Babita Tyagi and that they entered the house belonging to the complainant having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and other injured persons.
54. Thus, commission of offences u/s. 147, 452, 323 & 325 r/w. Section 34 IPC by the accused persons has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
55. As such, accused persons, namely, (i) Sanjay Tyagi S/o Sh. Ratan Singh Tyagi, (ii) Gaurav Tyagi S/o Sh. Rajender Tyagi &
(iii) Bhushan Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Singh are hereby convicted of commission of offences under Section 147, 452, 323 & 325 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. All the three FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 23 of 24 CNR No.DLWT02-000760-2014 accused persons are acquitted of offence u/s. 341 IPC.
56. One copy each of this judgment be given to the convicts against acknowledgment and free of cost. Digitally signed ANSHUL by ANSHUL SINGHAL SINGHAL Date: 2026.04.28 16:54:18 +0530 Announced in Open Court (Anshul Singhal) on 28.04.2026 JMFC-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Note: This judgment contains 24 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by ANSHUL ANSHUL SINGHAL SINGHAL Date: 2026.04.28 16:54:22 +0530 (Anshul Singhal) JMFC-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 7/2014 State vs. Ratan Singh & Ors. Page No. 24 of 24