Delhi District Court
State vs Amit on 21 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
S.C. NO.: 71/2020
FIR NO.: 682/2014
PS: KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
U/S.: 308/323/341/354/509/34 IPC
CNR: DLSE01-000609-2020
THE STATE
VERSUS
1. AMIT
S/O LATE SH. PARASH NATH
R/O H. NO. T HURTS-23, ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR,
BEHIND Q-BLOCK, SEWA NAGAR,
KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, NEW DELHI.
2. JEETU
S/O LATE SH. PARASH NATH
R/O H. NO. T HURTS-23, ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR,
BEHIND Q-BLOCK, SEWA NAGAR,
KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, NEW DELHI.
3. VIMLA DEVI
W/O LATE SH. PARASH NATH
R/O H. NO. T HURTS-23, ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR,
BEHIND Q-BLOCK, SEWA NAGAR,
KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, NEW DELHI.
... ACCUSED PERSONS
SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 1 OF 26
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21
16:20:13
+0530
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.12.2019
ORDER RESERVED ON : 18.08.2025
ORDER DELIVERED ON : 21.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Amit, Jeetu and Vimla Devi are facing trial for the offence u/s. 308/323/341/34 IPC and accused Amit and Jeetu are also facing trial for the offence u/s. 354/509/34 IPC.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of the Prosecution is that on 14.08.2014 Smt. Shakuntala came to the police station K. M. Pur and made a statement that " on the intervening night of 13.08.2014 at about 11:00 PM when she was sitting with her nanad namely Sangeeta on a cot in front of her house, one person namely Pawan came on scooty and hit their coat; that thereafter accused Amit and Jeetu came from his house and started abusing them in filthy language and when they stopped him then accused Amit caught hold of her hand and threatened to teach her lesson and slapped her nanad Sangeeta upon which both of them ran inside; that on hearing the noise her husband Neeraj came outside of the house and Pawan, accused Amit, Jeetu and Vimla Devi caught hold of her husband and started beating him and caused injuries on his head; that when her father in law Sh. Ramesh came to their rescue they had also beaten him due to which he sustained injuries; that thereafter someone made call at 100 number". On the statement of complainant/ injured, the present FIR was registered against accused SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 2 OF 26 GEETANJALI Digitally signed by GEETANJALI Date: 2025.08.21 16:20:23 +0530 persons for the offence punishable u/s. 308/323/341/354/509/34 IPC.
3. On the basis of charge-sheet so submitted before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a prima facie case, requisite charges u/s. 308/323/341/354/509/34 IPC was framed against all accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses.
5.1. PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala is the complainant in the present case and her testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment. 5.2. PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal is the public witness in the present case. His testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of judgment.
5.3. PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal is the public witness in the present case. His testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of judgment.
5.4. PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta is the public witness in the present case. Her testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of judgment.
5.5. PW-5 Sh. Rajinder Singh is the Record Clerk, AIIMS SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 3 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:20:36 +0530 Trauma Center has deposed that " he was deputed by Medical Superintendent to identify the signature of Dr. Praveen Kumar Bharti on MLCs of injured Neeraj Beniwal and Ramesh Beniwal respectively which are Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B respectively since the treating doctor Dr. Praveen Kumar Bharti has left the services of hospital".
5.6. PW-6 Dr. Soyam S Panda, Sr. Resident Orthopaedic, AIIMS, Delhi has deposed that "she proved the opinion on the MLCs of victims namely Sh. Neeraj Beniwal and Sh. Ramesh Beniwal which are Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B respectively prepared by Dr. Praveen Kumar Bharti since he has left the services of hospital; that he opined that injured Neeraj Beniwal sustained injuries i.e. laceration of scalp 6X6X1 cms and it was simple in nature caused by blunt object; that he further opined that injured Ramesh Beniwal suffered injury i.e. abrasion on forehead and it was simple in nature caused by blunt object". She was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. 5.7. PW-7 Inspector Durgadas is the police witness and has deposed that "on 02.01.2019, the investigation of the present case was marked to him; that co-accused Vimla was bound down by him and he filed the chargesheet before concerned Court". 5.8. PW-8 HC Arvind Singh is the police witness and he has deposed that "on 15.08.2014 he alongwith IO/ SI Vikas Rana went to Sewa Nagar and accused namely Amit and Jeetu were arrested near Arya Samaj Mandir at the instance of complainant Shakuntala vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D respectively and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW-8/1 and Ex. PW8/2; that SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 4 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:20:45 +0530 IO recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused persons in his presence which is Ex. PW-8/3 and Ex. PW8/4 ". He was cross- examined by ld. Defence Counsel.
5.9. PW-9 Insp. Vikas Rana is the Investigating Officer of the present case and he has deposed that " on 14.08.2014 after the registration of FIR, original rukka and copy of FIR was handed over to him by SI Surender Singh and thereafter he alongwith complainant went to the spot and prepared the rough site plan of the spot at the instance of complainant Shakuntala which is Ex. PW9/1; that he recorded the statement of complainant and her family members; that on 15.08.2014, he arrested and personally searched accused Amit and Jeetu in the presence of complainant vide memos Ex. PW1/C to Ex.
PW8/2 respectively; that he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant to the said effect; that thereafter he kept both the accused persons in the lock up of the concerned PS; that on 16.08.2018 both the accused persons were produced before the concerned Court from where they were sent to JC; that he got recorded the statement of complainant u/s. 164 IPC before the concerned Court in which the complainant has supported his version; that thereafter he was transferred and he had handed over the case file to the MHC(R) " He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. After completion of Prosecution evidence, all the incriminating material was put to all the accused persons under section 313 Cr.PC. They pleaded innocence and stated that it is a false case as they have been falsely implicated in the present case in SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 5 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:20:52 +0530 connivance with complainant; that the complainant and his family members came to their house and started quarreling with them; that complainant Neeraj Beniwal took the danda from their house and hit them and when Jeetu tried to save him from Neeraj, he bit his middle finger; that thereafter Sangeeta took one spray from their house and sprayed the same on their eyes; that Neeraj Beniwal hit the danda upon accused Amit which mistakenly hit Ramesh Beniwal due to which he sustained head injury. All the accused accused persons have preferred not to lead defence evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
7. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State has argued that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have fully supported the case of Prosecution and also explained about the manner of causing injury to PW-2 and PW-3; that PW-5 and PW-6 have proved the MLC of the injured and also nature of injury as well as nature of weapon used in commission of offence; that the testimony of PW-1 to PW-4 are also corroborated by the medical documents as well as by the statements recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C; that PW-1 to PW4 have also deposed that the injury was caused at vital part of body of PW-2 and PW-3 by the accused persons; that there is no improvement/ corroboration in the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses; that it is also settled principle of law that non recovery of weapon of offence is not fatal to the case of Prosecution; that it has not been established by the defence as to why accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case, therefore it is prayed to this Court that the accused persons are liable SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 6 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:21:01 +0530 to be convicted for the offence charged.
7.1. Per contra, it was argued from the side of all accused persons that the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 are not reliable as they are making contradictory statements to each other; that there are number of improvements in the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses which caused doubt over the Prosecution story; that no motive was established by the Prosecution as to why accused persons intended to cause injury to PW-2 and PW-3; that weapon of offence as alleged by Prosecution has also not been recovered which also caused doubt over the case of Prosecution; that accused persons were not present at the spot as no CDR or location chart of their mobile phones are collected in this regard; that no evidence came on record to support the testimony of Prosecution witnesses; that all the Prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and their testimonies are not reliable; that accused persons are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Hence it has been prayed to this Court that the accused persons should be acquitted for the offences charged.
8. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and perused the record.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
9. The accused persons namely Amit, Jeetu and Vimla Devi are facing trial for the offence u/s. 308/323/341/34 IPC and accused Amit and Jeetu are also facing trial for the offence u/s. 354/509/34 IPC.
9.1. Section 308 IPC deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 7 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:21:08 +0530 of an offence u/s. 308 IPC are:-
(1) That the accused did an act.
(2) That it was done:-
(i) with the intention, or
(ii) with the knowledge;
(a) of causing death;
(b) causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm was attempted to be caused; or
(c) of causing bodily injury to a person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted would have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
(d) that the act if completed would have been so imminently dangerous that it would have in all probability caused death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; that the act attempted was committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death of such injury as aforesaid;
To which may be added the following aggravating circumstances: (3) That the act caused hurt to the person by the act aforesaid. And if (3) is proved, proof of the following further aggravating circumstance is admissible;
(4) That the accused was then under sentence of imprisonment for life.
9.2. Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that:-
"Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
9.3. The points requiring proofs are :
SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 8 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:21:15 +0530
(i) That the accused caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant;
(ii) That the accused caused it with:-
(a) the intention of thereby causing hurt; or
(b) with the knowledge that he is likely there by to cause hurt.
9.4. Section 341 IPC provide punishment for wrongful restraint. The word "wrongful restraint" is defined u/s 339 IPC. In order to prove the facts constituting an offence under this section the following ingredients must be established:
(i) That there is an obstruction.
(ii) That the obstruction prevents a person from proceeding in any direction.
(iii) That the person so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.
9.5. Section 354 IPC makes penal the assault or use to criminal force on a women to outrage her modesty. The essential ingredients of offence under section 354 IPC are:
a) That the assault must be on a woman; b) That the accused must have used criminal force on her; c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman
intending thereby to outrage her modesty. 9.6. Section 509 IPC requires the following essentials:
(1) Intention to insult the modesty of a woman (2) The insult must be caused:
SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 9 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:21:22 +0530
i) by uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such words or sound shall be heard or that the gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or
ii) by intruding upon the privacy of such woman Hence the prosecution must prove:-
i) that the accused uttered the word or made the sound or gesture etc. in question;
ii) that such word, sound or gesture was intended by the accused to be heard or seen by some women;
iii) that he thereby intended to insult the modesty of that woman 9.7. Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to a woman, "woman propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought. speech and conduct". What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object.
10. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had beaten Neeraj thereby SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 10 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:21:30 +0530 causing injuries on his head and further caught hold of Sh. Ramesh and Ms. Shakuntala and caused simple injuries to them with such intention or under such circumstances that if by that act they had caused death, they will be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Furthermore accused Amit and Jeetu in furtherance of common intention abused Sangeeta and Shakuntala in filthy language and accused Amit caught hold of her hand and also slapped Sangeeta. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined complainant Ms. Shakuntala and other injured persons namely Sh. Neeraj Beniwal, Sh. Ramesh Beniwal and Ms. Sangeeta and I now proceed to analyse the testimonies of the witnesses in the present case.
10.1. Complainant/ injured Ms. Shakuntala was examined as PW-1 and she has deposed that " one day in the year 2014 at about 09:00 PM when she was sitting with her nanad namely Sangeeta in front of her home on a cot as there was no electricity in her house at that time, accused Amit came on scooty driven by one Pawan and hit their cot; that when she alongwith her nanad asked accused Amit and other boy Pawan to drive properly, accused Amit alongwith Pawan started abusing them and caught hold of her hand; that accused Amit along with other boy namely Pawan continued abusing them till accused Amit reached his house and after reaching at his house, they were joined with accused Jeetu and Vimla Devi in abusing them; that after about 10 to 15 minutes, accused Jeetu came to attack them with knife, accused Amit came to attack them with hockey sticks and accused Bimla came to attack them with thapi and after seeing all accused coming towards them with weapons, she alongwith her nanad SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 11 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:21:36 +0530 namely Ms. Sangeeta came inside their house; that when her husband and her father in law came outside after hearing the noises, all accused persons quarreled with them due to which her father in law received injuries on his head from hockey stick and her husband too received injuries on his head; that all accused persons fled away from the spot and she called at 100 number; that police came at the spot and took her father in law and husband to hospital; that her statement was recorded by police on the next day which is Ex. PW1/A and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate which is Ex. PW1/B; that accused Amit and Jeetu were arrested in her presence vide memos Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D ". She was cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
10.2. Sh. Neeraj Beniwal was examined as PW-2 and he has deposed that "on 13.08.2014 at about 10.30 to 11.00 PM accused Amit alongwith co-accused Jeetu and one Pawan came at his house and abused and beaten his wife Shakuntala and his sister Sangeeta; that when he came out of his house and asked the reason behind the said quarrel, accused Amit alongwith accused Jeetu attacked him with lathi and danda due to which he sustained injuries on his head and forehead; that accused Vimla Devi also came there and caught hold of him and pulled him towards his house; that when his father also reached there in order to save him, accused Jeetu attacked his father with danda (thapi) thereby causing injury on his head; that somebody called police at 100 number and police reached at the spot and took them to the hospital". He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 12 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:21:46 +0530 10.3. Sh. Ramesh Beniwal was examined as PW-3 and he has deposed that "on 13.08.2014 at about 10:30 pm he came out of his house after hearing noises and saw that accused Amit, accused Jeetu, Pawan and accused Vimla Devi were beating his daughter-in-law Shakuntla, daughter Sangeeta and his son Neeraj; that blood was oozing from the head of his son Neeraj; that when he tried to save his son from accused Amit, accused Jeetu hit him with some danda type object on his head and also pushed him due to which he received injuries on his head and neck and his son Neeraj took him to the hospital on foot". He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. 10.4. Ms. Sangeeta was examined as PW-4 and she has deposed that "on 13.08.2014 in between 10:30 to 11:00 PM she alongwith his bhabi namely Shakuntla were sitting outside their house since there was no electricity at that time and in the meantime one Pawan hit their cot with the scooter and went towards his house and that of accused Jeetu; that when she alongwith her bhabhi Shakantula objected to the same, accused Amit, accused Jeetu and said Pawan came out of their house and started misbehaving and abusing them in filthy language;
that when she alongwith her bhabhi Ms. Shakuntana ran towards their house in order to save themselves, accused Amit slapped her and caught hold of the hand of her bhabi Ms. Shakuntala but Shakantula somehow saved herself and went to her house in order to inform about the incident; that when her brother Neeraj tried to save her and her bhabhi Shakantula, accused Amit alongwith co-accused Jeetu started fighting with him; that when her father tried to save her brother Neeraj from accused Amit alongwith other co-accused SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 13 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:21:52 +0530 persons namely Jeetu and Vimla they started fighting with his father and caused injuries to him and his brother Neeraj ". She was cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
11. Going by the above-said testimonies, PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala and PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta both were present at the spot at the time of incident. PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta has simply deposed that accused Pawan (not arrested and chargesheeted) came on a scooty and hit the cot on which she alongwith her bhabhi Shakuntala were sitting and when they objected to the same accused Pawan, Jeetu and Amit came from the house of accused Jeetu and Amit and started misbehaving with her and her bhabhi Shakuntala. They all started abusing them in filthy language but she has not clarified what they exactly abused. She has further deposed that when they ran towards their house in order to save themselves, accused Amit caught hold of hand of her bhabhi Shakuntala and slapped her.
11.1. Now let's see what the other eye witness Shakuntala i.e. PW-1 has to depose about the incident. She has deposed that in the year 2014 at about 09:00 PM when she was sitting on a cot alongwith her nanad namely Ms. Sangeeta in front of their house at that time one scooty driven by accused Pawan and accused Amit as pillion rider came and hit their cot. Here she introduced accused Amit as pillion rider which the other eye witness namely Sangeeta i.e. PW-4 did not mention. She has further deposed that when they asked the scooty riders to drive properly, they started abusing them and went to the house of the accused Amit and continued abusing them and there they were joined by co-accused Jeetu and Vimla in abusing them. She has SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 14 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:22:02 +0530 also not specified what all filthy abuses were hurled at them by the accused persons.
11.2. Moving forward the testimony of PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta, she has deposed that after accused persons were abusing them, her brother Neeraj came out of his house and tried to save them and in the meanwhile some hot talks took place between them and they all started fighting with each other. That's all what has been deposed by her in her examination in chief as per which there was a fight between the complainant's side and the accused persons since accused persons misbehaved and abused the complainant i.e. PW-1 and her nanad Sangeeta i.e. PW-4 and PW-4 has nothing to say about what all kind of weapons were used by the accused persons due to which PW-2 Sh.
Neeraj Beniwal and PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal suffered injuries, the aspect on which PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala has said elaborately. 11.3. PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala has deposed that accused Jeetu came to attack them with knife, accused Amit came with hockey sticks and their mother accused Vimla was armed with thapi. It is at this moment PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal and PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal entered the scene to protect PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala and PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta as deposed by both PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala and PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta. PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala has deposed that the fight took place between PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal and PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal on the one side and accused persons on the other side. In view of the same all the witnesses are corroborating each other regarding the incident. Per contra accused persons have stated in their statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. that "it is a false case as they have been falsely implicated in the SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 15 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:22:10 +0530 present case in connivance with complainant; that the complainant and his family members came to their house and started quarreling with them; that complainant Neeraj Beniwal took the danda from their house and hit them and when Jeetu tried to save him from Neeraj, he bit his middle finger; that thereafter Sangeeta took one spray from their house and sprayed the same on their eyes; that Neeraj Beniwal hit the danda upon accused Amit which mistakenly hit Ramesh Beniwal due to which he sustained head injury ". From the same it becomes clear that a fight indeed took place between the complainant's side and the accused persons. However the plea taken by the accused persons was not put to either PW-1 Shakuntala or PW-2 Neeraj Beniwal or PW-4 Sangeeta during their cross- examinations nor they lead evidence to prove their said defence. All this has proved that it is the accused persons who are aggressors in the present case.
11.4. PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal has deposed that when he came out from his house and asked accused persons about the reason of the quarrel, they attacked him with lathi and danda and caused injuries on his head and forehead. It is at this moment did PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal entered the scene and when he tried to save his son i.e. PW-2, accused Jeetu attacked him with danda thereby causing injuries on his head. PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal has also supported this version of him that when his father tried to save him from the accused persons, accused Jeetu attacked his father with danda thereby causing injuries on his head. Secondly, no contrary suggestion was given to the witness regarding the said fact and his testimony went unrebutted. No SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 16 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:22:17 +0530 question was put from the side of the accused persons that accused Jeetu did not attack PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal with danda on his head thereby causing injuries. This part of his testimony goes unchallenged, unrebutted and unshattered as the same has not been assailed by way of cross examination. It is well settled principle of law that if any part of testimony is not challenged in the cross examination that is deemed to be admitted. 11.5. With regard to evidentiary value to be attached to testimony of an injured witness, it would be worthwhile to consider the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 the Hon'ble Supreme court made the following observations:
"Injured witness
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." 11.6. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments and noted the decision in Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v.
SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 17 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:22:24 +0530 State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] wherein it was held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident . The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as follows:
"30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
11.7. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the injured in the present case are PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal and PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal. PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal has deposed that when he asked the accused namely Amit and Jeetu about the reason of quarrel they attacked him with the lathi and danda thereby causing injuries on his head and forehead. The testimony of PW-2 is well corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal who intervened in the fight in order to save his son i.e. PW-2. He has deposed that accused persons were beating his son Neeraj Beniwal and blood was oozing from near his eyes. Regarding the injuries the Prosecution examined PW-5 Sh. Rajender Singh who has proved the MLC of injured Neeraj SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 18 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:22:33 +0530 Beniwal and the injuries were proved by PW-6 Dr. Soyam S Panda, Sr. Resident Orthopaedic, AIIMS, Delhi. PW-6 has deposed that "injured Neeraj Beniwal sustained injuries i.e. laceration of scalp 6X6X1 cms and it was simple in nature caused by blunt object ". Henceforth, the Prosecution has successfully established that PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal sustained injuries on his scalp which is vital part of the body. No suggestion was put to the witnesses from the side of accused persons that the injuries was self-inflicted. Rather it is not possible that a person can cause injury on his own on the top of his head.
11.8. Apart from PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal, PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal also suffered injuries during the said incident. PW-3 Sh.
Ramesh Beniwal has deposed that he was attacked with danda on his head by accused Jeetu. The testimony of PW-3 is well corroborated by testimony of PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal who has deposed that accused Jeetu attacked his father with danda on his head due to which he sustained injuries. Secondly, no contrary suggestion was given to the witness regarding the said fact and his testimony went unrebutted. No question was put from the side of the accused persons that accused Jeetu did not attack PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal with danda on his head thereby causing injuries. This part of his testimony goes unchallenged, unrebutted and unshattered as the same has not been assailed by way of cross examination. It is well settled principle of law that if any part of testimony is not challenged in the cross examination that is deemed to be admitted. Regarding the injuries the Prosecution has examined PW-5 Sh. Rajender Singh who has proved SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 19 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:22:39 +0530 the MLC of injured Ramesh Beniwal and the injuries were proved by PW-6 Dr. Soyam S Panda, Sr. Resident Orthopaedic, AIIMS, Delhi who has deposed that "injured Ramesh Beniwal suffered injury i.e. abrasion on forehead and it was simple in nature caused by blunt object". Henceforth, the Prosecution has successfully established that PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal too sustained injuries on his forehead which is vital part of the body. No suggestion was put to the witnesses from the side of accused persons that the injuries was self-inflicted. Rather it is not possible that a person can cause injury on his own on the top of his head.
12. The case put forth by the investigating agency is that all the accused persons attacked PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal and PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal with some danda like object and caused injuries on their heads and hence they were charged of committing the act in furtherance of their common intention of causing hurt to the injured persons.
12.1. The underlying basic assumption or foundation in criminal law is the principle of personal culpability. A person is criminally responsible for act or transactions in which he is personally engaged or in some other way had participated. Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 recognizes the principle of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence. It makes a person liable for action of an offence not committed by him but by another person with whom he shared the common intention. To attract applicability of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before a person can be vicariously convicted for the SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 20 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:22:47 +0530 criminal act of another. The ultimate act should be done in furtherance of common intention. Common intention requires a pre-arranged plan, which can be even formed at the spur of the moment or simultaneously just before or even during the attack. The use of words "in furtherance" suggests that Section 34 is applicable also where the act actually done is not exactly the act jointly intended by the conspirators to be done, otherwise, the words would not be needed at all. The common intention can be to do one act and another act can be done in furtherance of the common intention. The aforesaid quotation emphasizes that it is essential that each co-perpetrator should have necessary intent to participate or otherwise have requisite awareness or knowledge that the offence is likely to be committed in view of the common design. It also follows that in some cases merely accompanying the principal accused may not establish common intention. A co-perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act. If the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention, he would not be liable. Reliance placed on Judgment titled 'Krishnamurthi @ Gonodu Vs. State of Karnataka', passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.02.2022.
13. Applying the said principles relating to applicability of Section 34 IPC to the facts of present case, both the injured are unanimous on the point that all the accused persons were there at the spot when they were assaulted by one of the co-accused. Section 34 IPC comes into operation against the co-perpetrators because they have not committed SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 21 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:22:55 +0530 the principal or main act, which is undertaken/ performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. All the above-said is enough to conclude that the accused persons were sharing necessary intent to participate or otherwise have requisite awareness and knowledge that the offence is likely to be committed in view of the common design.
13.1. In order to constitute an offence under Section 308 IPC it is to be proved that the said act was committed by the accused with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the offence was committed under such circumstances that if the accused, by that act, had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide. The intention or knowledge on the part of the accused, is to be deduced from the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of the body where such injuries were suffered. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Kaur Oberoi v. State 2015 SCC Online Del. 7864 that "Offence punishable under Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. What the court is to see whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in Section 308 IPC. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge......."
SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 22 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:23:01 +0530 13.2. Similarly in Rajiv Sharma v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del.
12138 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that " To proceed under Section 308 IPC, it is not essential that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If an accused does not intend to cause death or any bodily injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or even to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, Section 308 IPC would not apply. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had the intention to cause death or knew in the circumstances that his act was going to cause death. The nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the motive of commission of offence, the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for causing injuries, severity of the blow or blows and the conduct of the accused are important factors which may be taken into consideration in coming to a finding whether in a particular case, the accused can be proceeded under Section 308 IPC."
13.3. In the given facts and circumstances, the testimony of complainant Ms. Shakuntala i.e. PW-1 is well supported by the other eye witnesses PW-4 Sangeeta regarding the fact that fight took place between the complainant's side and the accused persons which was SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 23 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:23:08 +0530 started by the accused persons and it has also been established that it was during that fight did the injured PW-2 Sh. Neeraj Beniwal and PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Beniwal suffered injuries. However neither it has been proved that the assault was premeditated or the assault was made with intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder since the MLC of the injured Neeraj Beniwal Ex. PW5/A describe the injuries as "laceration of scalp 6X6X1 cms and it was simple in nature caused by blunt object". Further PW-6 Dr. Soyam S Panda opined that injured Ramesh Beniwal suffered injury i.e. abrasion on forehead and it was simple in nature caused by blunt object as per the MLC Ex. PW5/B. Further the depth of any wound has not been given in the MLC. Since no depth of the wound has been given in the MLC, the inference is that wounds were superficial and not deep, which inturn, indicates that the blows to the injured was not given with much force. Had the blows to the injured was given with substantial force, the wound would not have been superficial. From the nature of injuries it cannot be said that they were caused with avowed object or knowledge to cause death. As per MLC, report of the injured there is no opinion that the injuries are such that same are likely to cause the death of the injured rather they were stated to be simple. Hence the ingredients of section 308 IPC are not fulfilled and the case falls within the ambit of section 323 IPC which deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
14. Coming to the offence U/s 354/509/34 IPC, the case of Prosecution is that accused Amit and Jeetu in furtherance of their common intention abused Sangeeta and Shakuntala and accused Amit SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 24 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:23:14 +0530 caught hold of her hand and also slapped Sangeeta and abused in filthy language "iski ma chaudu, behan ki lodhi, eski behan chaudu, maa ki lodi". Regarding that PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala as well as PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta both have deposed that accused Jeetu, Amit and Vimla abused them in filthy language but neither of them has specified what exactly they abused them. The requirement of the Section 509 IPC is utterance of obscene word or gesture intended to be heard by some woman with an intention to outrage her modesty. The word "Modesty", in relation to woman, is defined as womanly propriety of behaviour. The essence of woman's modesty is her sex. In the present case the act of the accused and the words uttered by him are infringing her privacy and the said behaviour is not proper in respect of a woman. Further the reaction of a woman is very relevant. Neither PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala nor PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta have deposed specifically about the abuses used by the accused Amit or Jeetu through which it can be deduced that their intention was to outrage the modesty of PW-1 Ms. Shakuntla or PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta. Secondly, PW-4 Ms. Sangeeta has deposed that accused Amit caught hand of her bhabhi Ms. Shakuntala however PW-1 Ms. Shakuntala has not uttered anything about that qua accused Amit. Neither of them have deposed anything that accused Amit or Jeetu tried to outrage their modesty. Nor they reacted in a way from which it can be concluded that they were afraid that their modesty is under the attack. Henceforth, the allegations against the accused persons u/s. 354/509/34 IPC are not established beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I reached to the SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 25 OF 26 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2025.08.21 16:23:22 +0530 conclusion that though Prosecution has successfully established that it was accused namely Amit, Jeetu and Vimla Devi who had beaten Neeraj Beniwal and his father Sh. Ramesh Beniwal but failed to established that that assault was made with such intention or under such circumstances that if by that act they had caused death, they will be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In these circumstances, accused namely Amit, Jeetu and Vimla Devi cannot be convicted for the offences punishable u/s.308/34 IPC and the case falls under section 323/34 IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s. 308/34 IPC and convicted u/s. 341/323/34 IPC. Further the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Amit and Jeetu who abused Sangeeta and Shakuntala in filthy language and accused Amit caught hold of her hand and also slapped Sangeeta. In these circumstances, accused namely Amit and Jeetu cannot be convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 354/509/34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of charge u/s. 354/509/34 IPC.
Digitally Typed to the direct dictation and signed by GEETANJALI announced in the open court GEETANJALI Date:
on this 21st day of August, 2025 2025.08.21 16:23:48 +0530 (Geetanjali) Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03 South East District,Saket Courts New Delhi/21.08.2025 SC NO. 71/2020, FIR NO. 682/2014, PS. K. M. Pur State Vs. Amit & Ors. PAGE NO. 26 OF 26