Delhi District Court
State vs Ajay on 30 March, 2026
FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Isha Singh, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 81697/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSH020048542021
FIR No. -: 165/2021
Police Station -: HARSH VIHAR
Section(s) -:
323/341/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
1.Ajay S/o Chander Pal R/o H. No. 175, Gali No.6, Saboli Khadda, Delhi
2. Vijay S/o Sh. Chander Pal R/o H. No. 175, Gali No.6, Saboli Khadda, Delhi .... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Smt Kavita
1. Ajay
2. Name of Accused :
2. Vijay Offence complained of or
3. : 323/341/34 IPC proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 04.10.2013
6. Date of Filing of chargesheet : 30.09.2014
7. Date of Reserving Order : 28.03.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2026
9. Final Order : Both accused CONVICTED for the offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC Digitally Page no. 1 / 14 signed by ISHA ISHA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:21:39 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar Argued by -: Sh. Rashid Ali, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Ld. LAC for the accused Ajay Accused Vijay in person.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION -:
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.10.2013 at 2.00 PM, at Gali No.6, Saboli Khadda, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Harsh Vihar, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused simple injuries by punching fists and blows to the complainant Kavita, thereby committing offences punishable u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED-
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the ac- cused was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against both the accused persons, notice was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE-
4. To prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, the prose- cution led the following oral and documentary evidence.
Digitally
signed by
ISHA
ISHA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.03.30
17:21:44
+0530
Page no. 2 / 14
FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW 1 : Ms. Kavita (complainant)
HC Bikram Singh (witness to the
PW 2 :
investigation)
PW 3 : Inspector Umesh Sati (IO)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW1/A : Statement of injured / complainant
Ex. PW3/A : MLC of injured
Ex. PW3/B : Tehrir/rukka
Ex. PW3/C : Site plan
Ex. PW3/D : Arrest memo of accused Ajay
Ex. PW3/E : Arrest memo of accused Vijay
Ex. PW3/F : Personal search of accused Ajay
Ex. PW3/G : Personal search of accused Vijay
DOCUMENTS ADMITTED UNDER SECTION
294 CrPC
Ex. A1 : FIR No.165/2013, PS Harsh Vihar
Ex.A2 : Certificate under Section 65B IEA
Ex.A3 : DD No.21A dated 04.10.2013
Ex.A4 : MLC with endorsement
ISHA
SINGH
Digitally signed
Page no. 3 / 14 by ISHA SINGH
Date: 2026.03.30
17:21:51 +0530
FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar
4.1. PW-1/Ms. Kavita deposed on oath that on on 04.10.2013, at about 02:00 PM, while she was standing outside the gate of her house, Asha came from her house and started abusing her. She deposed that upon her objection, Asha began quarrelling with her and her sons Ajay and Vijay, came there and started beating her, saying " bahut ho gaya aaj isko sabak shikhate hain ." She deposed that both Ajay and Vijay restrained her and assaulted her with fists and blows, due to which she fell on the ground and sus- tained injuries. She further stated that she was taken to GTB Hospital for treatment, pur- suant to which her statement was recorded and site plan was prepared. She was cross-ex- amined by both accused persons.
4.2. PW-3/IO Inspector Umesh Sati deposed that pursuant to receiving DD No. 21A on 04.10.2013 regarding a quarrel at Gali No. 6, Saboli Khadda, he alongwith Ct. Vikram reached the spot, where they came to know that the injured had already been shifted to GTB Hospital by PCR van. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Vikram reached GTB Hospital, where he collected the MLC of injured Kavita and recorded her statement. He stated that on the basis of the said statement, he prepared the rukka and handed it over to Ct. Vikram for registration of FIR. He further stated that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, he prepared the site plan at the instant the complainant. He stated that during the course of investigation, he arrested both the accused Ajay and Vi- jay and conducted their personal search. He stated that both accused persons were re- leased on police bail. He stated that he collected the result on the MLC and filed it alongwith the charge sheet, after completion of the investigation. He corectly identified the accused Ajay. Accused Vijay was exempted from personal appearance subject to his identity not being disputed. He was cross-examined by both accused persons.
Rest of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and proved the documents mentioned in the table above.
Since all the prosecution witnesses were examined, therefore, at request of Ld. APP for the State, PE was closed vide order dated 24.04.2024.
Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA SINGH Page no. 4 / 14 SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:21:59 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE-
5. On 18.05.2024, statement of accused Ajay and Vijay u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded, wherein they denied the case of the prosecution and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They stated that on the date of the incident, they were not present at the spot of the incident. They chose not to lead defence evidence and hence, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
6. While the matter was fixed for final arguments, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of accused Ajay and PW1 Kavita and PW2 HC Bikram Singh were recalled by the Ld. Predecessor for their cross-examination. In the meantime, an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of Ld. APP for State for summoning ad- ditional accused Asha was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 30.09.2024. Thereafter, again an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of accused Ajay and PW3/Inspector Umesh Sati was recalled for his cross-examination. Pursuant to cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the matter was fixed again for final argu- ments.
ARGUMENTS-
7. During final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP for the State that the case against the accused stood proved in view of the evidence led by the prosecution. He has argued that the victim to the incident has categorically deposed about the assault and the wrongful restraint by the accused persons. He argued that the factum of incident is proved and the other evidences on record including the MLC have corroborated the ver- sion of the complainant and have proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
8. On the other hand, Ld. LAC argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel has argued that the version of the com- plainant suffers from inconsistencies and improvements and cannot be made the sole ba- sis for conviction of the accused persons. He has argued that the complainant denied go - ing through the contents of the complaint before signing it and even denied getting the site Plan made. He has argued that the instant case is motivated and the accused persons Digitally signed by Page no. 5 / 14 ISHA ISHA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:22:13 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar are falsely implicated. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offences.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE AND ANALYSIS-
9. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met. In order to establish the offence under Section 323 IPC, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for the offence of voluntary causing hurt, which is defined u/s 321 IPC, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:
"321. Voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any per- son, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".
10. It is pertinent to note that "hurt" is defined u/s 319 IPC, which reads as follows: -
"319. Hurt.- whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt"
11. Further, it is seen that the prosecution has invoked Sec. 341 IPC against the ac- cused persons as well. Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for the offence of wrongful restraint, which is defined u/s 339 IPC, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:
"339. Wrongful restraint.- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception.- The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section."
12. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW- 1/Complainant Kavita, who has deposed that on 04.10.2013 at around 2.00 pm, mother of accused persons, Asha started quarreling with her and in the meantime, both accused persons Ajay and Vijay, restrained her and beat her with fists and blows pursuant to which she fell down and got injured. She further deposed that she was taken for treat - ment at GTB hospital and her MLC was prepared. The victim Kavita has identified both the accused persons correctly before this court. Digitally signed by Page no. 6 / 14 ISHA ISHA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:22:24 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar
13. In the present case, the testimony of PW-1 Kavita is corroborated by her MLC on record (Ex.PW3/A), which was conducted on the same day of the incident. The version of PW-1 Kavita also stands corroborated by DD No.21A dated 04.10.2013 (Ex.A3) recording the incident of a scuffle at Saboli Khadda Gali No.6 on 04.10.2013 via PCR call, pursuant to which complaint of PW1 Kavita (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded, upon which rukka (Ex.PW3/B) was prepared and which ultimately led to the registration of the present FIR (Ex.A1). The chronology of events as aforesaid, that transpired soon after the incident, apart from being relevant u/s 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, corroborate the ver- sion of the complainant, who was prompt in launching prosecution against the accused persons.
14. In the present case, the testimony of injured PW1/Kavita remained consis- tent during trial and was duly corroborated by her previous statement to the police. Even though, Ld. LAC for accused cross-examined the injured at length, however, nothing useful for the case of accused came forth. In other words, the injured / PW1 Kavita sus- tained the test of cross-examination. Further, nothing came on record to suggest any mo- tive for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is not even the case of the accused that the injuries of the victim Kavita were self-inflicted. In fact, the testi - mony of PW1/injured had an inherent flow, which is possible from a natural witness only. Accordingly, this court does not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant, which is cogent, consistent and reliable.
15. At this stage, it becomes important to discuss the defence arguments put forth by the Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the accused, to show why they are not appli- cable to the present case. Firstly, Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that since the complainant improved her testimony in her cross-examination and stated that she was beaten up by the accused persons as well as their mother, therefore, her version be disbe - lieved.
16. Having gone through the testimony of PW1 / Kavita and her MLC Ex.PW3/C, this court is not in agreement with the contention advanced by Ld. LAC for the accused. This is because PW-1 Kavita is an injured eye witness, whose testimony Digitally Page no. 7 / 14 signed by ISHA ISHA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:22:43 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar carries significant evidentiary weight, which cannot be discarded for minor contradic- tions. At this point, reliance may be had to the judgment in case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355, wherein the following ob- servations were made:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise es- tablished by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the ac- cused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be dis- carded lightly.(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradic- tions.(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggera- tion or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of in- jured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the pros- ecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
17. Law is trite that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the com- plainant if it is reliable and free from blemishes. Reference in this regard may be had to the case of Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl. Appeal No. 914/2006 decided on 13.03.2007), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Maharashtra (1975 SER 981) highlighting the following observations:
"1. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a sin- gle witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
2. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not in- sist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in case of a child witness or an ac- complice or a witness of analogue character.
3. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and Digitally signed by ISHA Page no. 8 / 14 ISHA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:22:49 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depend upon the judicial discretion of the judge before whom the case comes."
18. Thus, from the judicial pronouncements referred to, hereinabove, it tran- spires that the testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness is required to be decided with reference to the quality of his evi- dence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the court as fact wholly truthful and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. Reference in this regard may also be had to Shiv- alingappa V. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235; and Krishan Vs. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 459, wherein the Court held that testimony of the complainant/ injured witness has its own efficacy and relevance. He has no reason to omit real culprit and implicate falsely the accused person. It is well settled that once the ocular version is stated particularly by the complainant/injured himself, the Court would normally rely upon such version of the prosecution unless it suffers from serious infirmities or improve- ments. In the present case, the testimony of the complainant has remained cogent, consis- tent and reliable and has sufficiently been corroborated by the MLC on record. Under such circumstances, improvement in the version of PW1 Kavita to the extent that even mother of the accused beat her on the date of the incident along with the accused persons, is not sufficient to discard her testimony where she deposes about being beaten up by the ac- cused persons and identifies them correctly.
19. Secondly, Ld. LAC has argued that since the complainant admitted in her cross-examination that she did not know the contents of her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), or she did not get the site plan (Ex.PW3/C) prepared from the IO or she failed to remember the exact time of occurrence in her cross-examination or she did not know the contents of her MLC, therefore, her version be discredited and benefit of doubt be granted to the accused persons.
20. At this point, it needs to be appreciated that the complainant in the instant case is an illiterate lady who has disclosed about her incapacity to read or write in hindi language. Under such circumstances, the assertion of the complainant that she signed the Digitally signed by Page no. 9 / 14 ISHA ISHA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:22:56 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar complaint without having read it or she denied having got the site plan made by the IO or she expressed her lack of knowledge regarding the contents of the MLC do not strike at the root of the case of the prosecution, because the complainant, has on oath testified against both the accused persons and identified them before the court. Even the failure of the complainant to remember the exact time of occurrence in her cross-examination only amounts to a minor inconsistency, which is not sufficient to dislodge an otherwise reliable case of the prosecution. It is noteworthy that the cross-examination of the com- plainant was recorded nearly 11 years after the occurrence of the incident and such in - consistencies are bound to occur due to lapse of time.
21. Reference in this regard may also be had to the case of Lal Bahadur and ors vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2013 IV AD (SC) 416), wherein it has been held:
"So far as the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as pointed out by the counsel for the appellants, are concerned, we have gone through the entire evidence and found that the evidence of the witnesses can not be brushed aside merely because of some minor contradictions, particularly for the reason that the evi- dence and testimonies of the witnesses are trustworthy. Not only that, the witnesses have consistently deposed with regard to the offence com- mitted by the appellants and their evidence remain unshaken during their cross examination. Mere marginal variation and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses can not be ground to discard the testimony of the eye witness who is none else but the widow of the one deceased."
22. Thirdly, Ld. LAC has contended that the testimony of the complainant be discarded as it is not corroborated by any public witness. However, this Court is not in agreement with the aforesaid contention raised by the Ld. LAC. It is pertinent to mention that non-examination of public person is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as ob- served by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2003) 1 SCC 240] wherein the Court referred to its decision in another case titled as Ambika Prasad and another vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (2002) 2 SCC 646, highlighting the follow- ing observations:
"...12. It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prose-
Digitally signed by Page no. 10 / 14 ISHA ISHA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:23:08 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar cution witnesses, not a single independent witness has been examined and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence of PW5 and PW7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be witnesses or to assist the investi- gation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured wit- nesses or the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Another reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournment in the court. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence ...."
23. Reliance in this regard may also be had to the decision in the case of State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh [AIR 1988 SC 1998], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar contention observed as under:
"In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indif- ferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable."
24. Regarding non-joining of other public witnesses/the local neighbourhood, it would be suffice to state that Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act does not require any mini- mum number of witnesses to be examined for proving a particular fact and it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity/number of witnesses.
25. Lastly, Ld. LAC has argued that the case of the prosecution be dismissed as the complainant has falsely implicated the accused on account of prior dispute with their mother. However the court is not inclined to accept this argument. This is because al - though PW1 Kavita, in her cross-examination has revealed about a dispute between her and the mother of the accused persons, that occurred prior to the incident in question, however the same is not sufficient to discard her testimony for alleged false implication of the accused persons. Infact, PW1 Kavita has stated that six months prior to the inci-
Digitally
Page no. 11 / 14 signed by
ISHA
ISHA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.03.30
17:23:16
+0530
FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar
dent in question, a wall of the house of the accused persons had fallen upon her house leading to a dispute with the mother of the accused persons, however the same was set - tled with the intervention of neighbours, after the matter went to the police station. Thus, it becomes clear that dispute, if any, had already been amicably settled between the mother of the accused and the complainant and the said fact cannot be extended to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
26. Even the argument that the case of the prosecution must be disregarded for want of CCTV footage does not hold any ground, in view of the consistent testimony of PW1 Kavita. The same is only a defect in the investigation and cannot be used to discard an otherwise reliable case of the prosecution. It is settled law that taint in the investiga- tion is not a ground for acquittal. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed in Krishna vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine Del 93, inter alia, as un- der -
"63. In view of the legal principles set out above, if the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced then any failure or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer pales into insignificance when ocular testi- mony is found credible and cogent and cannot render the case of the prose- cution doubtful. If direct evidence is credible then failure, defect or negli- gence in investigation cannot adversely affect the prosecution case. As a general principle, it can be stated that error, illegality or defect in investi- gation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused to the accused, though the Court should be circumspect while evaluating the evidence."
27. Since the accused persons are alleged to have carried out the commission of offences under Sec. 323/341 IPC in furtherance of their common intention, therefore, at this point, reference may also be had to the judgment in the case of Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 SCC 521, which lays down the principle of joint liability under Sec. 34 IPC in the following terms:-
"26. Section 34 IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply there should be common intention between the co-perpetrators, ISHA which means that there should be community of purpose and common de- SINGH Page no. 12 / 14 Digitally signed by ISHA SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 17:23:25 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar sign or prearranged plan. However, this does not mean that co-perpetra- tors should have engaged in any discussion, agreement or valuation. For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be prearranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act hap- pens. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact as it requires prior meeting of minds. In such cases, direct evidence normally will not be available and in most cases, whether or not there exists a common in- tention has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. This requires an inquiry into the antecedents, conduct of the co-partici- pants or perpetrators at the time and after the occurrence. The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co-assailants/perpetra- tors, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack, etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclu- sion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34IPC are satisfied."
28. In the present case, the act of the accused persons Ajay and Vijay in beat - ing the complainant Kavita and shouting " bahut ho gaya aaj isko sabakh shikhate hai "
cannot be segregated and have to be looked at, in conjunction with each other. The acts attributed to the accused persons are reflective of their common intention to wrongfully restrain and assault the complainant for achieving the end of causing injury to her. The fact that the accused persons were present at the site of occurrence at the same time and were united in their purpose to cause injury to the victim, as is reflected from the deposi- tion of the victim, proves their meeting of minds and common intention to wrongfully restrain and cause injury to the complainant. In terms of Sec. 34 IPC, the individual acts of Ajay and Vijay in wrongfully restraining the victim and the act of causing hurt to the victim Kavita, in furtherance of their common intention, shall make both the accused persons liable for the offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
29. With these observations and findings, in the considered view of this court, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused persons. Ac - cordingly, Ajay S/o Sh. Chander Pal and Vijay S/o Sh. Chander Pal stand convicted of the offences under Sec. 323/341/34 IPC.
ISHA SINGH Page no. 13 / 14Digitally signed by ISHA SINGH Date: 2026.03.30 17:23:33 +0530 FIR No.165/2021 State vs. Ajay & Anr. PS Harsh Vihar
30. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convicts. Be heard separately Digitally on the quantum of sentence.
signed by
ISHA ISHA SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.03.30
Announced in the presence of 17:23:42
+0530
the accused persons in open court (Isha Singh)
JMFC-07/SHAHDARA/KKD/30.03.2026
Certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my sig- nature.
(Isha Singh)
JMFC-07/SHAHDARA/KKD/30.03.2026
Digitally
signed by
ISHA ISHA SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.03.30
17:23:48
+0530
Page no. 14 / 14