Delhi District Court
State vs Jitender Pal Narang on 10 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SHARMA VATS, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04: SHAHDARA: KKD COURTS: DELHI.
CNR No.DLSH01-005117-2017
SC No. 250/2017
FIR No. 137/2010
U/s. 304/34 IPC
PS: Anand Vihar
State
Vs.
1. Jitender Pal Narang S/o
R/o H.No. 22, Priya Enclave, Delhi.
2. Satish Thapar
R/o H.No. 2, Priya Enclave, Delhi.
Date of committal in the Court of Sessions : 22.12.2018
Final Arguments concluded on : 28.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 10.03.2026
Final Order : Accused persons have been
acquitted for the offence
under Section 304/34 IPC
charged against them.
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly stated, the case of complainant Sh. Sushil Sahni is that accused Jitender Pal Nagarg owed a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs to his father Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni; that a settlement was reached between them with the intervention of the members of the society, wherein, accused Jitender Pal Narang agreed to pay an amount on 15.02.2010, however, he failed to make the payment; that on 19.02.2010, accused Jitender Pal Narang alongwith accused Satish Thapar, who had previously contested an Election against complainant's father came to the Temple of Priya Enclave and also called his father there. Upon their arrival, the accused persons allegedly began abusing Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni questioning why he was demanding the money. They allegedly pushed and manhandled him despite alleged knowledge that Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni was a heart patient. As a result of manhandling, Sh. K.L. Sahni, the father of the complainant fell to the FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 1/38 ground. The complainant Sh. Sushil Sahni and his brother Sh. Jitender Sahni were also allegedly scolded during the incident. Sh. K.L. Sahni became unconscious and was rushed to the Deepak Memorial Hospital where he was declared brought dead; that the society members namely Sh. Ramesh Garg, Sh. Sher Jung Arora and others were also present at the spot. It is alleged that Sh. K.L. Sahni suffered heart attack due to manhandling by the accused persons.
After investigation, the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that no material/incriminating evidence came on record against the accused persons, therefore, a Cancellation Report was filed by the Prosecution. However, vide order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the then Ld. ACMM, the Cancellation report was not accepted and the accused persons were summoned under Section 304 IPC on the objections filed by the son of the deceased.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. On appearance, in compliance of section 207 Cr.PC, copy of Chargesheet was supplied to accused persons and since an offence punishable U/s 304 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the present case was committed to this Court. Charge under Section 304/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, same was read over and explained to them in vernacular, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE LED BY PROSECUTION
3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused for the alleged offence, the Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Some of the relevant extract of testimony of the witnesses is as follows :-
i. PW1 Sh. Sushil Sahni : He deposed that he knew accused Jitender Pal Narang being resident of same locality i.e., H.No. 22, Priya Enclave, Delhi-92; that accused Jitender Pal Narang owed Rs.1.5 lacs towards his father and he promised to pay the said amount to his father on 15.02.2010 FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 2/38 but accused Jitender Pal Narang failed to fulfill his promise; that the day to make the payment on 15.02.2010 was fixed due to intervention of respective members of their community. Thereafter, on 19.02.2010, at about 09:15 am, accused Jitender Pal Narang made a phone call to his father and requested him to come at Durga Mandir, Priya Enclave for payment; then, he (PW-1) along with his brother Jitender Sahni (PW-8) accompanied his father to Durga Mandir as they suspected that accused may have bad intentions in his mind because he was lingering on to make the payment on one or other pretext; that on receipt of said phone call, they reached at the said temple within few minutes as it was hardly 50 to 100 meters away from their house; that on reaching in front of Durga Mandir, they noticed that accused Jitender Pal Narang along with co-accused Satish Thapar, Rajeev Chaudhary, Giriraj Bagga, Sher Jang Arora and many other persons, whose name he did not know as they were not resident of their locality and were outsiders, were found present there; that on seeing his father, accused Jitender Pal Narang and Satish Thapar started hurling abuses to them; that when they protested, they (accused persons) started manhandling them and his father was caught hold by accused Satish Thapar from behind; that his father requested them not to manhandle with him as he was a heart patient, the accused persons were already aware about this fact that his father was a heart patient as they were residing in the same society for last 25 years.
PW-1 further deposed that accused Jitender Pal Narang made mockery of his father and gave a blow of fist on his chest, while accused Satish Thapar was holding him from back; that after receiving the blow of fist on chest, father of PW-1 became semiconscious and thereupon co- accused Satish Thapar pushed his father on the ground after twisting his hands. Thereafter, somehow he (PW-1) and his brother (PW-8 Jitender Sahni) rescued themselves from the clutches of other persons and rushed towards their father to save him, who was lying on the ground in FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 3/38 unconscious condition; that on seeing the condition of his father, he immediately rushed to his house and brought car to the spot and took him (victim/deceased) to Deepak Memorial Hospital; that after the examination of his father by doctor in the hospital, he was declared brought dead; that he immediately made a call at 100 number; that police reached at Deepak Memorial Hospital; that he narrated the whole incident to the police; that they were informed by the police that first of all the postmortem of the body of his father was to be conducted in Sabzi Mandi Mortuary; that he (PW-1) and his brother were brought to the PS Anand Vihar from Hospital;
that facts narrated by them were recorded by the police and they were also asked to go to Sabzi Mandi Mortuary; that they became so frightened after the said incident and they shifted to Hargovind Enclave; that after performing the last rites of their father i.e., after 3-4 days of the incident i.e., on 24.02.2010, they went to PS Anand Vihar to enquire about the status of their complaint and the Police informed them that investigation was going on; that as earlier they had not given written complaint to the police and went to Sabzi Mandi Mortuary for taking the dead body of his father on 24.02.2010, he gave a written complaint Ext.PW1/A to the police; that on 31.03.2010, he again joined the investigation and pointed out the place of incident and on his pointing out, the site plan was prepared by the IO.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of accused persons, the PW-1 had deposed that he had told to the police in his complaint that accused Jitender Pal Narang promised to pay the said amount to his father on 15.02.2010, but he failed to fulfill his promise; that he had not stated to the Police in his statement that as they were suspecting that accused Jitender Pal Narang may had bad intentions in his mind because he was lingering on to make the payment on one or other pretext; that he had not stated to the police in his statement that when they protested, the accused persons started to manhandle them; that he had FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 4/38 stated to the police in his statement that his father had requested them not to manhandle him. PW-1 further deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement that his father became semiconscious and thereupon co- accused Satish Thapar pushed his father on the ground after twisting his hands', the witness confronted with statement wherein it was mentioned that accused Jitender Pal Narang pushed his father to the ground after giving fists blow on the chest of his father. PW-1 further deposed that he had stated in his statement to the police that 'thereafter somehow, he and his brother rescued ourselves from the clutches of other persons and rushed towards our father to save him', confronted with statement (Ex.PW1/A) wherein it was not so recorded. The witness further deposed that he had not stated in his statement to the police that he immediately rushed to his house and brought car to the spot; that he had not stated in his statement to the police that he narrated the whole incident to the police; that he had not stated to police in his statement that they were informed by the police that first of all, the postmortem of the body of his father was to be conducted; that he had not stated to the police in his statement that 'myself and my brother brought to the PS Anand Vihar from hospital. PW-1 deposed that the facts narrated by them were recorded by the police and they were also asked to go to Sabzi Mandi Mortuary; that they became so frightened after the said incident and they shifted to Hargovind Enclave; that after performing the last rites of their father i.e., after 3-4 days of the incident i.e., on 24.02.2010, they went to PS Anand Vihar to enquire about the status of their complaint and the police informed them that investigation is going on. As earlier, they had not given written complaint to the police and went to Sabzi Mandi Mortuary for taking the dead body of his father.
PW-1 further deposed that in 2010 at H.No. 67 Priya Enclave, Delhi his father used to reside along with his mother, himself, his elder brother, namely, Sh. Jitender Sahani (PW-8) and his wife and his two children; that he used to do business in auto mobiles parts in the year 2010 FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 5/38 and presently also he is doing the same business.
The witness was questioned that in his chief examination dated 03.09.2021 he stated that after his father was declared brought dead, he had made a call at 100 number whereas in his complaint Ex. PW-1/A it is stated "humne 100 number par call ki thatha police aae". Which of his version is correct? Whether he had made the call or his brother had made the call? The witness replied that both brothers were present at the hospital and 100 was called either from the phone of his brother or from his mobile. However, he had spoken on the phone when 100 number was called.
PW-1 denied the suggestion that none of the family members of the deceased K.L Sahani was at Deepak Memorial Hospital at the time Sh. K.L Sahani was declared brought dead or at the time when the 100 number call was made to the police.
On being questioned that the first call made to the police after his father being declared brought dead was from mobile number 98104xxx00, can he tell as to whom the aforesaid mobile number belonged, to which the PW-1 replied that he does not know to whom that number belongs and he does not know who had called.
PW-1 deposed that when his father was declared brought dead, he along with his brother were present in the hospital; that his mother had also come in the meanwhile and one neighbourer Ramesh Garg was also present there; that they had reached the hospital at around 9:30-9:40 AM; that they remained at the hospital for around 40-50 mins.
PW-1 further deposed that there were no CCTV footage near the place of incident and denied the suggestion that there were CCTV cameras installed near the alleged incident spot or that accused Jitender Pal Narang did not owe any amount to his father and there arose no occasion for the accused to make any promise to his father of making the alleged payment. PW-1 further denied the suggestino that neither he nor his brother were present on 19.02.2010 at Durga Mandir Priya Enclave till the time his FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 6/38 father remained there or that neither he nor any of family members were present at Durga Mandir Priya Enclave when his father was taken to Deepak Memorial hospital or that no incident as alleged by him of dated 19.02.2010 in his evidence, had happened or that accused persons were never aware about the alleged illness of his father as had been alleged by him or that the accused persons neither at the alleged time or place nor at any other point had given abuses, beating, manhandling, pushing to his father or that after the knowledge of the death of his father on 19.02.2010 he colluded with the police official to extort money from the accused persons and later on lodged the false complaint Ex. PW-1/A or that he along with his brother and police official had falsely implicated the accused persons and to do so had manipulated and fabricated the records such as MLC etc. or that he had falsely alleged about himself and his brother accompanying their father towards Durga Mandir, Priya Enclave from their house in the morning of 19.02.2010 or that he had falsely alleged regarding accused Jitender Pal Narang of calling his father on 19.02.2010 for coming to Durga Mandi or that as there was never any call made by accused Jitender Pal Narang to his father as had been alleged by him in Ex. PW-1/A and in evidence, there was no phone number either of the caller or of the recipient of the alleged call was given to the police or before the Court. PW-1 further denied that he had falsely alleged in his evidence regarding him and his brother taking their father to Deepak Memorial Hospital from Priya Enclave and of calling 100 number after father being declared brought dead.
When the PW-1 was asked that it was only the residents of Priya Enclave who had taken your father to Deepak Memorial Hospital on 19.02.2010 from Durga Mandir Priya Enclave to which he replied that his father was taken to the hospital by him, his brother and one Ramesh Chand Garg.
PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was deliberately making FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 7/38 improvements and giving false evidence before the Court or that at the point the first call was made to the police after Sh. K.L Sahani being declared brought dead it was by Sh. Ramesh Chand Garg and at that time, neither him nor any other family members were present over there.
ii. PW2 Dr. S. Lal: He deposed that on 19.02.2010, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Kasturi Lal Sahani, 70 years male, S/o Late Sh. Lal Chand Sahani.; that the dead body was brought by SI Om Vir Singh, PS Anand Vihar with alleged history of collapse after some argument near Durga Mandir, Anand Vihar/ Priya Enclave and then, he was taken to Deepak Memorial Hospital vide MLC No. 1704 on 19.02.2010 at 09:35 am and declared 'brought dead'; that on external examination, no external injury was found; that on internal examination, the heart was enlarged, perecardium adherent to chest wall. Weight was 640 grams. Left corronary artery showed 80-90% blockage, right coronary artery showed 60% blockage and circumference artery showed 80-90% blockage. All arteries show artherosclerotic changes. Left ventricle wall thickness- 3cm and right ventricle thickness 1.5 cm. Rest of the viscera of the deceased were conjusted. The stomach contain 300 ml of semi digested food material and wall-NAD.
He further deposed that after going through the PM report finding, histopathological report and FSL report, he opined that the cause of death was Myocardial Ischaemic Disease due to Coronaries Artery insufficiency which may be precipitated due to stress/tension and duress; that the subsequent opinion which was on the back side of the postmortem report is Ex.PW2/B. When the Expert witness PW-2 was asked to elaborate the cause of death of the deceased, he replied that the deceased was already suffering from Coronary Artery Disease due to which patients of this disease was sensitive to any stress, tension, arguments and duress etc. FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 8/38 which can be escalated/precipitated due to arguments, stress, tension etc. and that can result into heart attack or death due to Coronary Artery insufficiency disease.
iii. PW3 Sh. Ramesh Garg : He deposed that in the year 2010, he was having a business of motor finance; that in the year 2010, he was President of RWA, Priya Enclave; that a meeting at 09:00 am for arriving to a settlement between Sh. K.L. Sahni and Sh. Jitender Pal Narang was scheduled at the Mandir of Priya Enclave in the year 2010, the date and month he does not remember; that when he reached to the scheduled place of meeting, persons have collected over there and were talking amongst themselves. Meanwhile, he saw that Sh. K.L. Sahni had fallen down and due to this, he got unconscious; that as his house was nearby, he brought his car and rushed him to Deepak Memorial Hospital in his car where Sh. K.L. Sahni was declared "brought dead"; that IO recorded his statement in the Police Station.
Witness has correctly identified the accused Jitender Pal Narang on the day of his deposition.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has admitted that the date of above said meeting was 19.02.2010. He further deposed that he could not depose the date due to lapse of time. PW-3 denied the suggestion that on 19.02.2010, some heated arguments took place between accused J.P. Narang and Sh. K.L. Sahni and voluntarily stated that there was an earlier dispute regarding some property issue between them, however, on 19.02.2010, no such arguments or any quarrel or any incident took place between the accused persons and Sh. K.L. Sahni. He admitted that on 19.02.2010 during the meeting it was decided that Sh. J.P. Narang shall pay settlement amount to Sh. K.L. Sahni that day itself in the Mandir.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 9/38During the cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he was aware of the fact in the year 2010 that a settlement in writing had arrived between J P Narang and Sh K.L. Sahni three years back from 19.02.2010. PW-3 admitted that elderly people from Priya Enclave stood witness to the said settlement. PW-3 further deposed that Sh. K.L. Sahni was not satisfied with the prior settlement on account of the previous settlement amount being deficient to the expenditure incurred by him over the plot/property; that he (PW-3) being the President of RWA had made J.P. Narang agreed to pay more for which a meeting was scheduled at Mandir on 19.02.2010. PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Garg admitted that Sh. K.L. Sahni had fallen down on the ground on his own and nobody had even touched or pushed him.
iv . PW4 Sh. Gaj Raj Bagga: He deposed that he was residing in Priya Enclave, Anand Vihar in the year 2010; that there was some money transaction between the accused Jitender Pal Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni (Sh. Kasturilal Shahni); the RWA of their colony had already settled their money dispute and the accused Jitender Pal Narang made the payment of settlement amount to Sh. K.L. Shahni, however, Sh. K.L. Shahni again started demanding money from the accused Sh. Jitender Pal Narang, therefore, RWA had called the accused Jitender Pal Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni to Durga Mandir, Priya Enclave next day for sorting out the matter. Accordingly, Sh. Jitender Pal Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni reached Durga Mandir at the given time; that Sh. K.L. Shahni came alone to Durga Mandir and he was not accompanied by any of his family members; that the RWA officer bearers and other residents of colony had also assembled at Durga Mandir; that suddenly, Sh. K.L. Shahni fell down on the floor; that no one had hurled any abuse over him and no heated arguments or any other quarrel or any altercation took place between the parties; that Sh. K.L. Shahni might have fallen down due to anxiety; that the other accused FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 10/38 namely Satish Thapar had also reached there; that none of the accused had uttered any word or abuse or pushed Sh. K.L. Shahni.
PW-4 further deposed that Sh. K.L. Shahni had fallen down on the floor on his own. Thereafter, Sh. K.L. Shahni was rushed to Deepak Memorial Hospital by the residents of colony; that the family members of Sh. K.L. Shahni reached at the hospital; that he had also gone to the hospital; that when the family members of Sh. K.L. Shahni reached the hospital, he came back to his house; that Police did not meet him nor inquired him regarding the present case.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, on being questioned that on the said date, arguments had taken place over some property issues between the accused J.P. Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni in front of temple, Priya Enclave, witness PW-4 denied the same and stated that no arguments had taken place between the accused J.P. Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni on that day.
On being questioned that prior to the said date, there were disputes between accused J.P. Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni (deceased) over some issue of property to which the witness agreed and stated that Sh. K.L. Shahni used to visit the house of the accused J.P. Narang for those issues and matters between them.
On being questioned that on 19.02.2010, the accused J.P. Narang was supposed to give money to Sh. K.L. Shahni, witness PW-4 denied the said suggestion and stated that Sh. J.P. Narang had already given money to Sh. K.L. Shahni prior to 19.02.2010 and on 19.02.2010, they were called at Durga Mandir for settlement since, Sh. K. L. Shahni used to visit the house of the accused J.P. Narang and used to argue with him. Sh. K.L. Shahni was demanding more money from Sh. J.P. Narang and therefore, he used to visit his house.
On being questioned that on 19.02.2010, arguments took place FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 11/38 between accused J.P. Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni in front of temple and thereafter, due to nervousness, Sh. K.L. Shahni fell down, the PW-4 denied the said suggestion and stated that no arguments had taken place between the accused J.P. Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni on that day.
During the cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons, witness has admitted that in the year 2007, a settlement in writing was entered into between the accused J.P. Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni; that in terms of that settlement, Sh. J.P. Narang had already given the entire settlement amount to Sh. K.L. Shahni.
v. PW-5 Dr. Kanika Singh:- She deposed that as per Histopathology report of patient Kasturi Lal Sahani, which was placed on record and prepared by Dr. U.R. Singh states presence of old healed infarct in the left ventricle and atherosclerotic changes in the left and right coronary arteries and left anterior descending artery meaning thereby, the ventricle of the heart of the patient had an episode of heart attack prior in time, therefore, it was an old healed infarct in the left ventricle. Atherosclerotic is the deposition of fat in the arteries and it is quite common amongst humans, however, not fatal in the current case. The Histopathology report is Ex.PW5/A. vi. PW-6 Dr. Kalpana Kumari: She deposed that as per PM No. 339/10 and Histopathology Report No. A-2/12 of patient Kasturi Lal Sahani, 74 years, male, the report had been diagnosed and signed by Dr. Usha Rani Singh; that the report reveals a case of atherosclerosis with calcification and thrombosis affecting right and left coronary artery and along with LAD artery. Meaning thereby, there was obstruction in the blood supply in the major arteries of the heart causing death and ischemia of the heart muscle contributing to loss of heart function. At the age of 74, it was a very common cause and it may lead to sudden cardiac death. The said report is FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 12/38 already Ex. PW5/A which bears the signatures of Dr. Usha Rani Singh at point A. vii. PW-7 Inspector Ram Sahay: He deposed that on 14.03.2011, he was posted in DIU, East as a Sub-Inspector; that on that day, the present case file was marked to him for further investigation by the order of ACP, DIU, East; that he inspected the case file and found that the approval from GNCTD regarding examination of Histopathological Test of the heart of the deceased from GTB Hospital, was attached with the file; that he enquired about the said from the GTB Hospital and he was told that only after the VISCERA Report, they will be able to give the Histopathological Report.
PW-7 further deposed that on 02.02.2012, he had deposited the Exhibits of the deceased to GTB Hospital through Ct. Mool Chand vide RC No. 4/21/12; that he recorded the statement of Ct. Mool Chand u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard. In the month of May, 2012, he was transferred from DIU East to South District and handed over the case file to Reader, ACP.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that he had met only one of the complainant at his residence during the period investigation remained with him; that he had not recorded the statement of the complainant whom he had met.
viii. PW-8 Jitender Sahni, son of the deceased:- He deposed that his father Kasturi Lal Sahni had to receive a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from accused Jitender Pal Narang regarding consideration amount of a plot sold by accused Jitender Pal Narang to his father, however, this plot was non- existent and it only existed on papers; that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was settled through biradari; that payment was supposed to be made by 15.02.2010, however, accused Jitender Pal Narang did not make payment; that on 19.02.2010, at about 09:15 AM, accused Jitender Pal Narang called FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 13/38 his father at Durga Mandir, Priya Enclave, Delhi; that when he along with his father and his brother Sh. Sushil Sahani reached at Durga Mandir, where the accused persons Jitender Pal Narang and Satish Thappar were already present at the Mandir and there were many more individuals namely Ramesh Garg, Rajeev Chaudhary, Gajraj Bagga, Aneja, Sher Jang Arora, H. R. Gulati and many more other individuals were also present with the accused persons.
PW-8 further deposed that as soon as they reached there, accused Jitender Pal Narang and accused Satish Thappar started hurling abuses over them and refused to give any payment to them; that his father Kasturi Lal Sahani was a heart patient and had already gone two by-pass surgeries; that the condition of his father was already known to both the accused persons; that his father had told them not to abuse them and both the accused replied that "ab to hamara kaam aur aasan ho gaya ". Then accused Satish Thappar caught hold hands of his father from behind and the accused Jitender Pal Narang gave a blow on the chest of his father and also pushed him to the ground; due to this incident, his father collapsed and they immediately rushed him to the Deepak Memorial Hospital where his father was declared brought dead; his father had died by heart failure.
A statement (Ex.PW8/A) was shown to the witness and witness had identified his signatures at Point A, however, he had denied making that statement to the police or recording of the same by the police; that the witness has submitted that the said statement was never read over to him by the police officials when his signatures was obtained on that statement. The witness has correctly identified both the accused persons on the day of his deposition.
During his cross-examination by the defence counsel, the witness interalia deposed that he does not remember his mobile number which he was using in the year 2010; that his father was not having any mobile phone or mobile number in the year 2010; that his brother was FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 14/38 using mobile phone at that time, however, he does not remember his mobile number; that accused Jitender Pal Narang had called on their landline number i.e. 22370xxx on the day of incident to call his father at Durga Mandir; that he does not remember whether the police had collected the call detail record of their landline number or the number of Jitender Pal Narang or that they had filed the same along with the Protest Petition.
When the witness was questioned that whether any call to the police was made either by him through his mobile, his brother through his mobile or through the landline number of the home between the period 09:15 AM to the time the father had reached to Deepak Memorial Hospital to which he (PW-8) replied that they were not carrying their mobile phones at that time and voluntarily deposed that they had taken their father to the hospital in the car of Sh. Ramesh Garg who called the police after reaching at Deepak Memorial Hospital.
PW-8 further deposed that they had verbally made complaint to the PS Anand Vihar on 19.02.2010, however, no written complaint was given; that he does not know whether any written complaint was ever lodged by him to the police against accused persons and again said, he does not remember if he gave any complaint to the police at any point of time; that he does not remember whether the police had recorded his statement at any point of time; that he does not remember whether the landline number or the mobile numbers of himself and his brother had been mentioned in the Protest Petition; that he does not remember whether he had gone through the Police Report filed by the police in the present matter; that he was aware that police had filed the settlement document which had arrived between his father and accused persons, however, the settlement did not materialise and his father did not receive the money. He admitted that the said agreement was executed between the parties.
PW-8 denied the suggestion that neither he nor his brother had gone to Durga Mandir along with their father on the alleged date and time.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 15/38PW-8 further denied that he had falsely stated regarding him and his brother going to Durga Mandir along with their father just to implicate the accused knowing fully well that there was never any call made by the accused Jitender Pal Narang to his father or that his statement of not carrying the mobile phone while allegedly going along with the father to going Durga Mandir is a false statement as he had no answer to cover up the fact that as to what restrained him or his brother to call at 100 no. or to the Police. He further denied that he had falsely stated regarding taking his father to Deepak Memorial Hospital along with his brother and with Ramesh Garg in the car of Ramesh Garg as neither he nor his brother were there to accompany Ramesh Garg. PW-8 further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot or that he did not witness any alleged incident or that the allegation leveled by him that the accused had to pay amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to his father was a false statement as there was no due left upon the accused and the settlement which was arrived had already got materialised before the date of alleged incident.
PW-8 further deposed that his father had friendly relations with the accused Jitender Pal Narang. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely stated regarding the accused persons abusing him, his brother and father and of pushing, beating his father. He further denied that the entire story narrated by him was false or that the allegations against the accused persons of having knowledge regarding the heart problem of his father was also false.
ix. PW-9 Retd. IO/ASI Omvir Singh: The witness deposed that on 19.02.2010, he was on emergency duty at PS; that during his emergency duty, he received DD No.11A (Ex.A1), on which he reached at Sabzi Mandi Mortuary where he moved an application for conducting the Postmortem of deceased Kasturi Lal Sahni; that his application in this regard is Ex.PW9/A; he got conducted the postmortem of dead body of FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 16/38 deceased Kasturi Lal Sahni; he had recorded statements of two witnesses namely Sushil Sahni and Jitender Sahni at the Sabzi Mandi Mortuary; that the statement of Sushil Sahni is Ex.PW9/B and the statement of Jitender Sahni is Ex.PW8/A; that prior to postmortem, he had got conducted the identification of dead body of deceased through his sons and he recorded the statements of sons in this regard (Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D).
PW-9 further deposed that after postmortem, the concerned Doctor had handed over him exhibits of the deceased in a sealed condition; that the dead body was handed over to son of deceased Sh. Sushil Sahni vide Handing Over Memo Ex.PW9/E; that he had taken the possession of viscera handed over to him by the concerned Doctor vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/F; that he had also taken the possession of History Heart Examined handed over to him by the concerned Doctor vide memo Ex.PW9/G; that he seized the blood sample of deceased which was handed over to him by the concerned Doctor vide memo Ex.PW9/H; that he had also seized the exhibits of deceased containing clothes and blood sample vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/J; that Ct. Lalit was accompanying him to the Sabzi Mandi Mortuary. Thereafter, they returned to PS and he made his arrival entry in the PS vide DD No.19A dated 19.02.2010; that he deposited the exhibits of deceased in the Malkhana.
x. PW-10 Second IO/Inspector Pramod Kumar- The witness deposed that on 20.06.2012, the further investigation of the present case was marked to him by concerned ACP, DIU; that he inspected the case file and on 29.06.2012, he received histopathology report of the deceased from GTB Hospital; that on 06.09.2012, he received the FSL result of viscera of deceased from FSL, Rohini; thereafter, he obtained opinion from the concerned Doctor regarding the cause of death of deceased on the basis of histopathology report and viscera report. Thereafter, he had examined four witnesses namely Sher Jung, Rajeev, Ramesh and Gajraj during his FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 17/38 investigation and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
He further deposed that during investigation, he had also served a notice upon the complainant to produce the evidence, if any, regarding the death of deceased but he had not submitted the same before him at any point of time; that he he had discussed the case file with his senior officials and he had filed the cancellation report in the concerned court as there was no evidence on record against the accused persons.
xi. PW-11 Retd. ACP Dharampal Singh- He deposed that on 02.07.2010, the further investigation of the present case was marked to him by concerned ACP, DIU; that he inspected the case file and came to know that the viscera of the deceased was already sent to FSL, Rohini on 18.03.2010 and the Doctor who conducted the postmortem suggested for Histopathological examination of the heart of the deceased; hence, request was sent to the PHQ for obtaining necessary permission from Govt. of NCT of Delhi for nomination of any Hospital for the said examination.
PW-11 further deposed that on 15.07.2010, he had sent all the relevant documents to PHQ for the same purpose; that during his posting in DIU, no intimation for nomination of said hospital was received; that on 25.02.2011, he was transferred to Vigilance Branch, hence, the case filed was handed over to the concerned ACP, DIU.
xii. CW-1 Sh. Rajiv Chaudhary- CW-1 was examined as a Court Witness and during his examination, he has deposed that he does not remember the date of incident, however, it was in the year 2010 in the morning at around 08:00 am, he received a call from one Sh. Ramesh Garg who was Ex-President of RWA to come near Durga Mandir on the pretext that he being the President of RWA should remain present over there as there was a meeting to resolve the issue which was pending between Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni and accused Jitender Pal Narang; that when he reached FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 18/38 over there, some persons of colony who were senior citizens were already present there; that the matter between both the above (deceased and the accused) had already been settled and the all persons of colony were collected in order to bring it to them that the same stands fully settled. Witness further deposed that they were waiting for Sh. J.P. Narang who came there with Sh. Satish Thapar; that by the time, Sh. J.P. Narang and Sh. Satish Thapar were coming, Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni who was at a distance from both of them, initially sat down on the road and thereafter, he lied down; that people of the colony informed his family members who came over there and took Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni to the Hospital Deepak Memorial.
CW-1 further deposed that he also went to Deepak Memorial Hospital later where he came to know that Sh. Sahni had already passed away; that there was no scuffle, hot talk, argument or fight which happened at Durga Mandir; that there was no scuffle, argument or fight which had occurred with Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni; that the dispute, if any, regarding nominal amount of money was already settled between Sh. J.P. Narang and Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni; that in fact, deceased Kasturi lal Sahni had already received payment in full and final from Sh. J.P. Narang and to this effect, one letter was already issued; however, Sh. J.P. Narang again agreed to pay the amount of Rs.1 lakh to the Sahni uncle just to buy peace as deceased Sh. Sahni was unnecessarily again and again was raising undue demands from the accused J.P. Narang; that the other accused Sh. Satish Thapar had also remained President of RWA and had been called by Sh. J.P. Narang to accompany him while he was taking breakfast; that Sh. J.P. Narang asked Sh. Satish Thapar to come along since he wanted to give the amount of Rs.1 lakh in presence of public persons including Ex-Presidents; that no argument or tension or scuffle or duress took place between the deceased i.e. Sahni uncle and between the accused.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 19/384. Accused have admitted certain documents under Section 330 BNS (294 Cr.P.C)vide which Admission/denial of the documents was conducted. Accused persons admitted following documents and statements with their own will and after getting assistance from their Ld. Counsel :-
i.) Recording of DD Entry No. 11A dated 19.02.2010 (Ex.A1);
ii) Statement of Ct. Lalit recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C.; iii) Statement of Ct. Nagender recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C; iv) Statement of Ct. Anoop Singh recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C.; v) Statement of Ct. Mool Chand recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C.; vi) Registration of present case FIR i.e. FIR No. 137/10, PS Anand Vihar (without contents) (Ex.A2); vii) FSL report no. FSL.2010/C-1122 dated 17.08.12 (Ex.A3) and
viii) MLC No. 1074/10 of patient Sh. K.L. Sahni (Ex. A4).
In view of the admission, evidence of Prosecution Witnesses i.e. ASI/DO Veena Devi, Ct. Lalit, Ct. Nagender, Ct. Anoop Singh, Ct. Mool Chand, SI Arun Sandhu and Ms. Kavita Goyal, Scientific Officer mentioned in the list of Prosecution Witnesses were dropped from the list of Prosecution Witnesses.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
5. PE was closed by the order of the court and statement of accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Accused Jitender Pal Narang stated that he did not owe any amount to the deceased Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni and that the financial dispute between them had already been settled in the year 2007. He stated that the deceased was exerting unnecessary pressure upon him to fulfill unlawful and undue monetary demands, and therefore, he had approached the RWA to resolve the issue. According to him, the meeting at Durga Mandir was convened by the RWA officials and not at his instance, and he had not made any phone call to the deceased on the day of the incident. He further stated that neither PW-1 nor PW-8 had accompanied their father to the Mandir and that the deceased had come there FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 20/38 at the request of the RWA. He categorically denied that any abuses were hurled or that any manhandling, assault, or physical contact took place. He stated that before the meeting could commence, the deceased first sat down and thereafter lay down on the ground on his own. He denied having knowledge of any heart ailment of the deceased and asserted that the latter appeared active and healthy. He further stated that immediately upon the deceased lying down or collapsing, Sh. Ramesh Garg took him to Deepak Memorial Hospital. He alleged that the complainant and his brother had falsely implicated him out of greed and with the intention to extort money.
Accused Satish Thapar similarly stated that the dispute between the deceased and accused Jitender Pal Narang had already been resolved in 2007 and the settlement amount had been paid. He stated that he was called by RWA President Sh. Ramesh Garg to attend the meeting at Durga Mandir to help resolve the issue and that no call was made by accused Jitender Pal Narang to the deceased. He denied that PW-1 or PW-8 were present at the spot and stated that the deceased had come alone. He further denied that any quarrel, abuse, scuffle, or manhandling took place and stated that before the meeting could begin, the deceased sat down and thereafter lay down on the ground on his own. He denied having caught hold of or assaulted the deceased and denied any knowledge of his alleged heart ailment. He also asserted that the allegations were false and motivated, and that he had been implicated only to exert pressure for monetary gain.
FINAL ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL
6. This Court has heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. S.K. Dubey, Ld. Addl. PP for State, Sh. Gaurav Seth, Ld. Counsel for both the accused as well as Sh. Vishal Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the complainant. This court has also perused the entire record.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 21/387. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the accused persons may be convicted as per law as there are clear allegations against them.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences alleged in the present case and the accused are entitled to be exonerated for all the charges against them since it is a completely false case and the accused persons are entitled to Hon'ble acquittal.
Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that PW1 Sh. Sushil Sahni (son of the deceased) was confronted with improvements vis-à-vis his earlier complaint, and PW8 (brother of PW-1) went to the extent of denying his own statement recorded by the police. Such conduct gravely undermines their reliability. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when independent witnesses do not support the Prosecution and the case rests solely on interested witnesses whose testimonies suffer from inconsistencies, it would be unsafe to rely upon such unreliable witnesses.
It is further argued that the medical evidence also demolishes the false case asserted only by the sons of the deceased, who are interested in only mincing money from the accused. PW2 Dr. S. Lal, who conducted the postmortem, categorically has stated that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. In a case alleging manhandling, pushing and fist blows on the chest, the complete absence of even a single external injury is highly significan; that the internal examination revealed that the deceased was suffering from severe coronary artery disease with 80-90% blockage in one artery and 60% in another, along with marked atherosclerotic changes. The cause of death was opined as myocardial ischaemic disease due to coronary artery insufficiency, which may be precipitated by stress or tension. The expression "may be precipitated" clearly indicates a mere possibility and that mere possibility was not due to any act of the accused since accused persons did not do any act of any FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 22/38 nature, rather deceased was the one who was acting in greed despite receiving money from the accused.
It is further argued that PW5 and PW6 further confirmed that the deceased had long-standing and advanced cardiac disease, including evidence of an old healed infarct and extensive atherosclerosis with calcification and thrombosis. At the age of 74 years, such a condition is a recognised cause of sudden cardiac death. Thus, the medical evidence establishes that the deceased was already suffering from a serious and sufficient natural condition capable of causing death.
It is contended that there is absolutely no reliable evidence to show that the accused persons did any act which was the direct or indirect or proximate cause of death or escalating death. The Prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons did any act which was the cause of death, rather there was a pre- existing severe cardiac disease and the deceased died a natural death.
It is further contended that prior settlement already took place between the parties which is admitted by all the witnesses including PW-8 Sh. Jitender Sahni, son of the deceased. Independent witnesses have clearly stated that the dispute had been settled earlier and that payment had been made. There is evidence that the accused had even agreed to pay additional money just to maintain peace. This demolishes the Prosecution theory that the accused had a motive to abuse or assault the deceased over non-payment.
It is lastly argued that it is trite law that the Prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, in the present case, independent witnesses have not stated the complete truth before the Court, the testimony interested witnesses suffer from contradictions, medical evidence does not establish that the death was homicidal, the complaint was delayed, motive is doubtful, and even the Investigating agency found no case against the accused since no incriminating evidence was found against the accused persons during the investigation.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 23/388. POINTS OF DETERMINATION
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed an act amounting to "culpable homicide"
within the meaning of Section 299 IPC, that is to say, whether they caused the death of the deceased by doing an act with (i) the intention of causing death, or (ii) the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, or (iii) with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death, and whether any such act, if proved was the direct and proximate cause of the death of the deceased?
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
(I) CHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Witness No. Name of Witness Description
PW-1 Sh. Sushil Sahni Complainant/Son of the deceased
PW-2 Dr. S. Lal Doctor (Medical Jurist)
PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Garg Neighbour of the complainant
PW-4 Sh. Gaj Raj Bagga Neighbour of the complainant
PW-5 Dr. Kanika Singh Doctor (Medical Jurist)
PW-6 Dr. Kalpana Kumari Doctor (Medical Jurist)
PW-7 Insp. Ram Sahay IO/Police Witness
PW-8 Sh. Jitender Sahni Son of the deceased
PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir Singh Police Witness
PW-10 Inspector Pramod Kumar IO/Police Witness
PW-11 Retd. ACP Dharampal IO/Police Witness
Singh
CW-1 Sh. Rajiv Chaudhary Court Witness
(II) CHART OF EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
Ex.PW-1/A Original complaint PW-1 Sh. Sushil Sahni
Ex.PW-2/A Postmortem report of the deceased PW-2 Dr.S. Lal
Ex.PW-5/A Histopathology Report of the PW-5 Dr. Kanika Singh
deceased
Ex.PW-8/A Statement of PW-8 Sh. Jatinder PW-8 Sh. Jatinder Sahni
Sahni recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW-9/A Application for conducting PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 24/38
postmortem of dead body of the Singh
deceased
Ex.PW-9/B Statement of Sh. Sushil Sahni PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
Singh
Ex.PW-9/C & D Statements of the sons of the PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
deceased qua identification of the Singh
dead body.
Ex.PW-9/E Handing Over Memo of dead body PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
of deceased Singh
Ex.PW-9/F Seizure memo of viscera PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
Singh
Ex.PW-9/G Seizure memo of Heart History of PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
deceased Singh
Ex.PW-9/H Seizure memo of blood sample of PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
deceased Singh
Ex.PW-9/J Seizure memo of clothes and blood PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
sample of deceased Singh
Ex.PW-9/K Arrival entry in the PS vide DD No. PW-9 Retd. ASI Omvir
19 A dated 19.02.2010 Singh
9. The accused persons have been charged for an offence punishable under Section 304/34 IPC. The case of Prosecution is that on 19.02.2010, at about 9.15 am, accused Jitender Pal Narang called the father of the complainant Lt. Sh.
Kasturi Lal Sahni near the temple of the colony; that the complainant and his elder brother also accompanied the deceased to the colony temple where accused Jitender Pal Narang has already called Satish Thapar, the President of Temple of Priya Enclave; on reaching at temple of Priya Enclave, accused Jitender Pal Narang and Satish Thapar allegedly started using abusive language to deceased Kasturi Lal Sahni and accused Jitender Pal Narang refused to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to deceased; that both the accused were residing in the colony of complainant and it was already known to them that father of complainant Kasturi Lal Sahni had already had a bypass surgery and he was a heart patient; that father of complainant asked the complainant not to use abusive language with him since he was a heart patient; then both the accused said that " ab to hamara kaam aur bhi aasan ho gaya hai"; that accused Satish Thapar caught hold the father of complainant and accused Jitender Pal Narang gave fist blows on the chest of the father of the complainant and pushed him towards the surface; that before the FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 25/38 complainant could do anything, the father of the complainant suffered a heart attack due to abusive behavior and beatings from the accused persons.
It is further alleged that the other persons of their colony namely Ramesh Garg and Sher Jung Arora were also present there but they did not help the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant took his father to Deepak Memorial Hospital in his car.
On the basis of above stated statement of the victim/ injured, present case FIR was registered and the investigation of the matter was conducted. On the basis of the investigation, the Investigating Agency itself came to the conclusion that nocase was made out against the accused persons, therefore, cancellation report was filed by the Investigating Agency in the present case. However, vide order dated 15.07.2015, the then Ld. ACMM, the accused were summoned under Section 304 IPC on the objections raised by the son of the deceased and the Cancellation Report was not accepted.
10. Section 304 of IPC and Section 299 of IPC are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
Section 304 of IPC Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 26/38 likely to cause death.
Section 299 of IPC Culpable homicide.
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
11. The Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 11 witnesses. One of the Prosecution Witness namely Sh. Rajeev Chaudhary was examined as Court witness since the Ld. Addl. PP submitted before the Court that he wants to drop the said witness from the list of PWs since he is the witness whose statement corroborates the Cancellation Report filed by the Police in the present case. The key witnesses of the present case are PW-1/Complainant Sh. Sushil Sahni (son of the deceased), PW-3 Ramesh Garg (eye-witness), PW-4 Sh. Gaj Raj Bagga (eye-witness), PW-8 Sh. Jitender Sahni (another son of the deceased) and CW-1 Rajiv Chaudhary (eye-witness of the incident).
12. After carefully considering the material available on record, this Court is required to advert to the essential factors necessary for a just determination of the case and to arrive at a reasoned conclusion. It is incumbent upon the Court to evaluate whether the Prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the foundational ingredients of the offence alleged namely, the commission of culpable homicide by the accused, the requisite intention or knowledge accompanying such act, and a direct and proximate nexus between the alleged act and the death of the deceased. Now, let us dwell upon the appreciation of evidence/ testimony on the record:-
13. CW-1 Sh Rajeev Chaudhary has deposed that it was in the year 2010 in the morning at around 08:00 am, he received a call from one Sh. Ramesh Garg FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 27/38 who was Ex-President of RWA to come near Durga Mandir on the pretext that he being the President of RWA should remain over there as there was a meeting to resolve the issue which was pending between Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni and accused Jitender Pal Narang; that when he reached over there, some persons of colony who were senior citizens were already present there; that the matter between both the above (deceased and the accused persons) had already been settled and the all persons of colony were collected in order to bring it to them that the same stands fully settled. Witness further deposed that they were waiting for Sh. J.P. Narang who came there with Sh. Satish Thapar; that by the time, Sh. J.P. Narang and Sh. Satish Thapar were coming, Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni who was at a distance from both of them, initially sat down on the road and thereafter, he lied down. People of the colony informed his family members who came over there and took Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni to the Hospital Deepak Memorial.
CW-1 further deposed that he also went to Deepak Memorial Hospital later where he came to know that Sh. Sahni had already passed away; that there was no scuffle, hot talk, argument or fight which happened at Durga Mandir; that there was no scuffle, argument or fight which had occurred with Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni; that the dispute, if any, regarding nominal amount of money was already settled between Sh. J.P. Narang and Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni; that in fact, deceased Kasturi lal Sahni had already received payment in full and final from Sh. J.P. Narang and to this effect, one letter was already issued; however, Sh. J.P. Narang again agreed to pay the amount of Rs.1 lakh to the Sahni uncle just to buy peace as deceased Sh. Sahni was unnecessarily again and again was raising undue demands from the accused J.P. Narang; that the other accused Sh. Satish Thapar had also remained President of RWA and had been called by Sh. J.P. Narang to accompany him while he was taking breakfast.
14. PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Garg interalia deposed that in the year 2010, a meeting was scheduled at about 09:00 AM at Durga Mandir, Priya Enclave, to arrive at a settlement between victim/deceased Sh. K.L. Sahni and accused FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 28/38 Jitender Pal Narang; that when he reached the spot, persons had already gathered and were talking amongst themselves, and meanwhile, he saw that Sh. K.L. Sahni had fallen down and became unconscious. He further deposed that as his house was nearby, he brought his car and rushed him to Deepak Memorial Hospital where he was declared "brought dead."
During his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness stated that there was some earlier dispute regarding the property issue between the accused J.P. Narang and Sh. K. L. Sahni, however, on 19.02.2010 (date of the incident), no such arguments or any quarrel or any incident took place between the accused persons and Sh. K.L. Sahni (deceased). Further, during his cross- examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Garg categorically admitted that Sh. K.L. Sahni had fallen down on his own and nobody had even touched or pushed him.
15. PW-4 Sh. Gaj Raj Bagga deposed that Sh. Jitender Pal Narang and Sh. K.L. Shahni reached Durga Mandir at the given time; that Sh. K.L. Shahni came alone to Durga Mandir and he was not accompanied by any of his family members; that the RWA officer bearers and other residents of colony had also assembled at Durga Mandir; that suddenly, Sh. K.L. Shahni fell down on the floor; that no one had hurled any abuse over him and no heated arguments or any other quarrel or any altercation took place between the parties; that Sh. K.L. Shahni might have fallen down due to anxiety; that the other accused namely Satish Thapar had also reached there; that none of the accused had uttered any word or abuse or pushed Sh. K.L. Shahni.
16. PW-1/Complainant Sh. Sushil Sahni as well as PW-8 Sh. Jitender Sahni (sons of the deceased) have deposed almost on the same lines that on the day of incident, their father Sh. K.L. Sahni had to receive a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs from one of the accused namely Jitender Pal Narang and on 19.02.2010, at about 09:15 am, accused Jitender Pal Narang made a call to their father and requested FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 29/38 him to come at Durga Mandir, Priya Enclave, Delhi; that they alongwith their father reached at Durga Mandir where the accused persons were present with Sh. Ramesh Garg, Sh. Rajeev Chaudhary (CW-1), Sh. Gaj Raj Bagga, Sh. Sher Jung Arora etc.; that the accused persons started hurling abuses to them and when they protested, accused persons started manhandling with them; that the heart condition of their father was already known to the accused. They have further stated that the accused Satish Thapar caught hold of their father from behind and the other accused J.P. Narang gave a blow on the chest of their father and also pushed him to the ground; that their father got collapsed/unconscious and immediately, they rushed their father to Deepak Memorial Hospital.
17. It is alleged that the accused persons abused, manhandled and assaulted the deceased, which led to his death due to heart attack. The testimony of the independent/public witnesses PW3 Ramesh Garg, PW4 Gajraj Bagga and CW1 Rajeev Chaudhary, who were present at the spot at the relevant time assume significance as they were admittedly present at the spot and are natural witnesses, being office bearers/members of the RWA in whose presence the meeting between the accused and Sh. K.L. Sahni was convened. These witnesses had no apparent motive either to falsely implicate the accused or to shield them.
18. The eye-witness Rajeev Chaudhary has clearly stated that there was no scuffle, hot talk, argument or fight which happened at Durga Mandir. It is also noteworthy that this witness stated that by the time, the accused persons were coming, Sh. Kasturi Lal Sahni who was at a distance from the accused initially sat down on the road and thereafter, he lied down. This version thus negates the allegation that the deceased was assaulted or pushed by the accused persons and resultantly, he fell/lied down on the ground.
19. PW3 Ramesh Garg (eye-witness), who was the President of the RWA FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 30/38 and in whose presence, the meeting was allegedly convened, has also clearly deposed that "no such arguments or any quarrel or any incident took place between the accused persons and Sh. K.L. Sahni." PW-3 Ramesh Garg also made a very material admission that the deceas ed had fallen down on the ground on his own and nobody had even touched or pushed him. This statement strikes directly at the substratum of the Prosecution case, which is premised on allegations of manhandling and assault. Being an independent witness and the person who admittedly took the deceased to the hospital, his testimony also carries substantial evidentiary weight.
20. Similarly, PW4 Gajraj Bagga, another eye-witness and independent resident present at the meeting, has categorically denied the occurrence of any abusive exchange or physical confrontation and deposed that no one had hurled any abuse over the victim/deceased and no heated arguments or any other quarrel or any altercation took place between the parties. He further reiterated that the deceased had fallen down on the floor on his own. Even when cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP, the witness stood firm and denied suggestions that any argument or quarrel had taken place. He deposed that Sh. J.P. Narang had already given money to Sh. K.L. Sahni prior to 19.02.2010 and on 19.02.2010, they were called at Durga Mandir for settlement since, Sh. K. L. Shahni used to visit the house of the accused J.P. Narang and used to argue with him; that Sh. K.L. Shahni was demanding more money from Sh. J.P. Narang.
21. A careful and cumulative reading of their depositions reveals a consistent and categorical denial of the Prosecution story regarding any quarrel, abuse, altercation or physical assault by the accused persons upon the deceased. Further, these three witnesses are consistent in their deposition throughout. Thus, what emerges from the testimonies of these independent witnesses is a uniform and consistent narrative that there was no incident of assault, abuse, quarrel or FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 31/38 manhandling of the victim/deceased by the accused persons. Their evidence is not only consistent inter se but also appears natural. There is no material on record to suggest that these witnesses were inimically disposed towards the complainant or had any reason to depose in favour of the accused persons. On the contrary, being members of the same locality and part of the RWA, they were neutral persons whose presence at the spot is admitted by all sides.
22. The presence of the sons of the deceased i.e. PW1 Sushil Sahni and PW8 Jitender Sahni at the spot at the time of the alleged incident is a crucial factor, as they are the only witnesses who have attributed overt acts to the accused persons. However, upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court finds their presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful and not free from suspicion. None of the independent witnesses present at the spot have supported the presence of sons of the deceased (PW1 and PW8) at the spot. PW3 Ramesh Garg, PW4 Gajraj Bagga and CW1 Rajeev Chaudhary, all of whom were admittedly present at the meeting, have not corroborated the claim that both sons of the deceased were present at the time of the incident witnessing the alleged assault. PW4 Sh. Gajraj Bagga has specifically deposed that the victim/deceased Sh. K.L. Shahni came alone to Durga Mandir and he was not accompanied by any of his family members. In fact, the said version of the witness remain uncontroverted during his entire testimony.
23. PW-1 Sushil Sahni (son of the deceased) deposed in his examination- in-chief that he immediately made a call at 100 number. During his cross- examination, he was specifically asked whether he made the call or his brother made the call, to which he replied that we both brothers were present at the Hospital and 100 number was called from either from his mobile or from the phone of his brother. When the witness was asked that the first call made to the police after his father was declared brought dead was from Mobile no.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 32/389810403200, he replied that he does not know to whom this number belonged and he does not know who had called.
PW-8 Jitender Sahni (another son of the deceased) when confronted with a question that whether any call to the police was made either by him through his mobile or by his brother through his mobile or from the landline number of the home, he replied that they were not carrying their mobile phones at that time and it was Sh. Ramesh Garg (PW-3) in whose car their father was taken to the hospital and he (Ramesh Garg) had called the Police after reaching at Deepak Memorial Hospital.
Neither of these witness (sons of the deceased) has offered any plausible explanation as to why they were not carrying their mobile phones if they were apprehending assault or scuffle or were indeed present at the spot. Even assuming they were not carrying their phones, no explanation has been furnished as to why no call was made immediately after the alleged incident from the mobile phone of any of the individual present at the spot, if any assult or manhandling with their father indeed took place. Their conduct thus, appears to be unnatural.
24. Furthermore, PW-1 Sushil Sahni attempted to portray that he and his brother rescued their father and took him to Deepak Memorial Hospital. PW-1 Sushil Shani deposed that on seeing the condition of his father, he immediately rushed to his house and brought car to the spot and took him (victim/deceased) to Deepak Memorial Hospital. However, PW-3 Ramesh Garg, has clearly deposed that as his house was nearby, he brought his car and rushed the deceased to the hospital in his vehicle. PW-8 Jitender Sahni (brother of the complainant) himself admitted during his cross-examination that the deceased was taken in the car of Ramesh Garg and further stated that Ramesh Garg called the police after reaching at Deepak Memorial Hospital.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 33/3825. Moreover, the medical evidence in the present case also assumes a pivotal importance, particularly in light of the allegation that the death of the deceased was a consequence of the alleged acts of the accused persons. In order to prove an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the Prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt a homicidal death and a clear, direct, and proximate link between the alleged act of the accused and the death of the deceased. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the act attributed to the accused persons must be the causa causans i.e. the effective cause of death.
26. PW2 Dr. S. Lal, who conducted the postmortem examination, has categorically deposed that No external injury was found (on the body of the deceased.) This aspect assumes great significance, particularly when the Prosecution alleges that the deceased was abused, manhandled, caught hold of, given fist blows on the chest and pushed to the ground. In a case involving allegations of physical assault, the complete absence of even a single external injury creates serious doubt regarding the occurrence of such acts. The internal examination conducted by PW2 revealed that the heart of the deceased was enlarged and suffering from severe coronary artery disease, including 80-90% blockage in the left coronary artery 60% blockage in the right coronary artery and 80-90% blockage in circumference artery, along with marked atherosclerotic changes. After considering the histopathological and FSL reports, PW2 Dr. S. Lal vide Ex.PW2/B opined that the cause of death was "Myocardial Ischaemic Disease due to Coronary Artery insufficiency which may be precipitated due to stress/tension and duress."
27. PW5 Dr. Kanika Singh has deposed that regarding presence of old healed infarct in the left ventricle and atherosclerotic changes in the left and right FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 34/38 coronary arteries and left anterior descending artery meaning thereby, the ventricle of the heart of the patient had an episode of heart attack prior in time, therefore, it was an old healed infarct in the left ventricle. Similarly, PW6 Dr. Kalpana Kumari testified that the report reveals a case of atherosclerosis with calcification and thrombosis affecting right and left coronary artery and along with LAD artery, meaning thereby, there is obstruction in the blood supply in the major arteries of the heart causing death and ischemia of the heart muscle contributing to loss of heart function and that at the age of 74, it is a very common cause that may lead to sudden cardiac death.
28. These testimonies of the Medical Expert/Doctors clearly establish that the deceased was already afflicted with a cardiac condition which, by itself, could have caused death and the condition of the heart of the deceased is common at that age and well recognized cause of sudden Cardiac death. Further, it is evident that the foundational allegation of assault or abuse itself remains under serious doubts. Independent witnesses PW3 Sh. Ramesh Garg, PW4 Sh. Gaj Raj Bagga and CW1 Sh. Rajeev Chaudhary have categorically denied any alleged incident of abuse or manhandling or assault and have stated that the deceased fell down on his own. Thus, in the present matter, the testimonies of PW-3 Ramesh Garg, PW-4 Gajraj Bagga, CW-1 Rajeev Chaudhary, PW2 Dr. S. Lal, PW5 Dr. Kanika Singh and PW6 Dr. Kalpana Kumari, along with the Postmortem and Histopathological reports, reveals that the Prosecution has failed to establish/ prove that any alleged incident of arguments or abuse or assault or stress or duress was attributed to or was caused by any accused or that the death was a homicidal death or that it got precipitated or escalated due to any act of human. The very substratum of the prosecution case namely, that the accused persons committed any act or an overt act of assault remains unproven.
29. One another important circumstance is the existence of a prior FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 35/38 settlement between the deceased and accused Jitender Pal Narang, as consistently emerging from the evidence on record. This aspect not only undermines the alleged motive attributed to the accused but also probabilises the defence version that the meeting on the date of incident was convened merely to resolve lingering issues and not for any confrontation. Even from the testimony of PW1 Sushil Sahni, it emerges that the date for payment had earlier been fixed as 15.02.2010 through community intervention, which itself indicates that the matter was being dealt with through mutual settlement mechanisms and not through hostility.
PW3 Ramesh Garg, who was the President of the RWA and an independent witness, has clearly admitted during his cross-examination that "a settlement in writing had arrived between J.P. Narang and Sh. K.L. Sahni three years back from 19.02.2010." He further deposed that elderly members of the locality had stood as witnesses to the said settlement. This establishes that the financial dispute between the parties had already been formally resolved much prior to the date of incident.
30. Similarly, PW4 Gajraj Bagga has also supported this position by stating that the accused had already made the payment as per the earlier settlement and that the deceased had again started demanding more money. He deposed that "the accused Jitender Pal Narang made the payment of settlement amount to Sh. K.L. Shahni, however, Sh. K.L. Shahni again started demanding money." This testimony indicates that any subsequent disagreement was not due to non-payment but rather due to fresh or additional demands made by the deceased.
Further corroboration is found in the testimony of CW1 Rajeev Chaudhary, who stated that the matter had already been settled and that the gathering at the temple was essentially to affirm or bring closure to the dispute. He further stated that the accused had even agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.1 lakh to the deceased merely to maintain peace, despite the earlier settlement.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 36/38This version strongly supports the defence plea that the accused had no intention to engage in any confrontation or aggressive conduct and the intention was to buy peace and bring closure to the dispute/fresh demand.
31. The existence of such a prior settlement is thus, a material circumstance because it directly impacts the motive alleged by the prosecution. In the present case, sons of the deceased have alleged that the accused refused to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and, in that context, accused assaulted the deceased. However, the consistent evidence of independent witnesses shows that the settlement had already taken place and that the accused Jitender Pal Narang had already discharged his liability, however, he was willing to further settle the matter and put it at rest. Thus, the existence of a prior settlement between the parties not only weakens the prosecution's case on motive but also lends credence to the defence version. This is yet another circumstance which creates reasonable doubts in the Prosecution story as weaved by the sons of the deceased.
CONCLUSION:-
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons committed any overt act of any nature let alone any act amounting to culpable homicide. The ocular version of the alleged assault rests solely upon the testimonies of interested witnesses (sons of the deceased) whose statements does not inspire confidence of the Court and whose presence at the spot itself is rendered doubtful. The independent witnesses, who were admittedly present at the spot, categorically denied any quarrel, assault or manhandling. The medical evidence reveals advanced pre-existing coronary artery disease capable of causing sudden cardiac death. The Prosecution has failed to prove that the death in question was a homicidal death or that it got accelerated or precipitated due to FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 37/38 any act on the part of any of the accused.
33. Accordingly, the Point of determination is decided as under :-
Finding :-
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed an act amounting to "culpable homicide" within the meaning of Section 299 IPC, that is to say, whether they caused the death of the deceased by doing an act with (i) the intention Negative of causing death, or (ii) the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, or (iii) with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death, and whether any such act, if proved was the direct and proximate cause of the death of the deceased?
34. In view of above appreciation of evidence and foregoing discussion, both the accused persons Jitender Pal Narang and Satish Kumar deserve to be exonerated for the charges against them. Accordingly, they are, hereby, acquitted for an offence punishable U/s. 304/34 IPC.
Announced and dictated in the open Court on 10.03.2026.
(SURABHI SHARMA VATS) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
This Judgment contains 38 pages and each page has been signed by me.
(SURABHI SHARMA VATS) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 137/2010 PS Anand Vihar State Vs. Jitender Pal Narang & Anr. Page 38/38