Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Aarjoo on 6 January, 2026
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 5070 of 2024.
CNR No. : DLSE01-008564-2024.
State
versus
Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo
Son of Mr. Mohd. Muktar
Resident of B-122 Jhuggi, Majdoor Camp,
Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi.
FIR No. 424 of 2021.
Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
Date of filing of the chargesheet : 09.07.2024.
Date of committal of the case : 05.08.2024.
Date of first hearing before the learned : 16.08.2024.
predecessor on committal of the case
Date of framing of the charge : 13.09.2024
Date of first hearing before the undersigned : 28.11.2025.
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 06.01.2026.
Date of judgment : 06.01.2026.
Appearances : Mr. R. K. Gurjar, Chief Public Prosecutor (Officiating)
for the State.
Accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo on bail with counsel,
Mr. Arvind Kasana.
Complainant Mr. Mohd. Jameel in person with counsel
Mr. Athar Alam, Mrs. Sumbul Athar, Mr. Mohd. Faiz
and Ms. Sana Noor.
***********************************************************
Digitally
signed by
NIVEDITA NIVEDITA
ANIL SHARMA
Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06
14:51:52
Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 1 of 45 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Okhla Industrial Area for the offence under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
2. On the complaint of one Mr. Mohd. Jameel son of Mr. Rehbar Ali, FIR bearing number 424 of 2021 was registered by the police of Police Station Okhla Industrial Area under section 308 of the IPC.
Chargesheet
3. The requisite investigation culminated into the charge sheet for offence under section 308 of the IPC, which was filed against the accused in the Court of learned JMFC-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 09.07.2024. Compliance of provisions of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) was made. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi committed the case to the Court of Sessions under provisions of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. on 05.08.2024 for trial being a sessions triable case for 16.08.2024.
Prosecution case
4. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2021, on receipt of GD No.24A by SI Suresh Chand, ASI Phool Karan along with SI Suresh Chand and Ct. Ram Avtar went to the spot i.e. near B-80, Okhla Phase-1, Railway Line where they got to know that the injured had already been taken to AIIMS Hospital. ASI Phool Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:51:59 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 2 of 45 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
Karan alongwith SI Suresh Chand and Ct. Ram Avtar went to Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital where injured Mr. Mohd. Jameel was found to be under treatment. SI Suresh Chand had collected the MLC of injured Mr. Mohd. Jameel and after obtaining the permission of the Doctor, SI Suresh Chand had recorded the statement of injured/ complainant Mr. Mohd. Jameel wherein injured Mr. Mohd. Jameel stated that he alongwith his family resides at S-184/188, Jhuggi New Sanjay Camp, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi and is B.Com 3rd year student. He stated that on 15.05.2021, he and accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo, a resident of his colony, were playing cricket near Railway Line, Okhla Phase-I. He was bowling and accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo was batting. At around 05:30 pm to 06:00 pm, accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo hit the ball and when the same crossed the boundary line, accused Mr. Mohd.
Aarjoo claimed the same to be six runs but the complainant/ injured Mr. Mohd. Jameel disputed the same to be four runs and on this, accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo got agitated and hit the injured/ complainant Mr. Mohd. Jameel on his head and body with bat and as a result, the injured got unconscious. Thereafter, the other boys playing in the said ground, took the injured/ complainant Mr. Mohd. Jameel to his house and from there his elder brother took him to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. On the basis of the statement of the injured, the FIR was registered. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed under section 308 of the IPC against the accused.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:52:04 +0530 FIR No. 424/2021.
Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 3 of 45 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
Charge
5. Vide order dated 13.09.2024, charge was framed against the accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo under section 308 of the IPC that on 15.05.2021 at about 05:30 pm to 06:00 pm, near Railway Line, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo hit the cricket bat on the head and body of the complainant Mr. Mohd. Jameel and had caused grievous injuries on his body with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he had caused the death Mr. Mohd. Jameel, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution witnesses
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen (15) witnesses.
7. Dr. Piyush Aggarwal (PW-1) was the doctor who proved the X-ray of the injured. SI Akhilesh Kumar (PW-2) was the Duty Officer who had recorded GD No.24A on receipt of information. ASI Murari Lal (PW-3) was the Duty Officer who registered the FIR. ASI Phool Karan (PW-4) was IO who filed the charge-sheet in the present matter. Mr. Sanjay (PW-5), Mr. Shakeel Ahmed (PW-7), Mr. Mukesh (PW-10) and Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11) are the eye witnesses. Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) is the complainant, injured and victim; ASI Avinesh (PW-8) had accompanied ASI Phool Karan during investigation. Dr. Vikas Rao (PW-9) is a formal Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 FIR No. 424/2021. 14:52:10 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 4 of 45 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
witness (discharged as he was not able to identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Nandeesh B. Kurawatti). HC Ram Avtar (PW-12) accompanied SI Suresh Chand during investigation. SI Suresh Chand Meena (PW-13) is the initial Investigation Officer of the case; Dr. Tejparkash Sinha (PW-14) proved the MLC No.500273390 dated 15.05.2021 prepared by Dr. Nandeesh B. Kurawatti; and Dr. Nandeesh B. Kurawatti (PW-15) prepared the MLC of the injured Mr. Mohd. Jameel and had opined the nature of injury as grievous.
Statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and his defence
8. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo has controverted and rebutted the entire incriminating evidence against him stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant with whom he has previous enmity and to satisfy his whimsical ego and revenge. He has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
Final arguments
9. I have heard final arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point. I have also carefully perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant / prosecution.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date: SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:52:16 +0530 Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. FIR No. 424/2021. Under section 308 of the IPC. PS : Okhla Industrial Area. State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 5 of 45 ::- -:: 6 ::-
10. The Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that from the evidence and other material which has come on record, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case. The complainant and the eye witnesses have supported the prosecution story. Investigation has been conducted fairly and properly and all the relevant documents have been proved. It is prayed that accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo be convicted for the commission of the alleged offence.
11. On the other hand, the legal aid counsel for accused Mr. Mohd.
Aarjoo has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent. The complainant/injured/victim and the other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. No independent person from the public associated in the investigation, arrest of the accused, recovery of the weapon of offence, etc. The prosecution has failed to examined Mr. Shishu who informed brother of the injured about the alleged incident. Investigation is not fair nor proper. There was previous enmity between the complainant/injured and the accused due to which he has been falsely implicated. There is no evidence on record to connect accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo with the alleged offences. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo may be acquitted.
Discussion, analysis and observations
12. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:52:22 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 6 of 45 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concertized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the Courts have to proceed Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06
Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:52:28
+0530
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 7 of 45 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
13. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides.
Section 308 of the IPC
14. Section 308 of the IPC reads as follows:
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.--
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Most material witness-complainant/injured Mr. Mohd. Jameel
15. It is very relevant to elaborate the evidence of the most material witness i.e. Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) who is the complainant/injured/victim. He has identified the accused as well as the weapon of offence i.e. bat and assigned a criminal role to the accused.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITASessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:52:35 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 8 of 45 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
16. The following judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case have been enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajan v. The State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1081:
i. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
ii. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
iii. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisonning his evidence. iv. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:52:40 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 9 of 45 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
v. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. vi. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
vii. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. viii. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
ix. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. x. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
xi. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06
14:52:46
Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 10 of 45 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
xii. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
xiii. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)"
17. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
i. 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.
ii. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
Digitally signed by Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:52:52 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 11 of 45 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
iii. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
iv. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
v. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. vi. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
18. It was also held in the above referred judgment that in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused Digitally signed by Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:53:00 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 12 of 45 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. {Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365}.
19.Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) has identified the accused as the culprit and also identified the weapon of offence i.e. bat (Ex. PW-6/P-1). He has deposed in his examination in chief as follows:
"On 15.05.2021 at about 05.30-06.00 pm I alongwith other boys including Aarjoo had gone to play cricket near Railway Fatak at Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi. I was bowling and Aarjoo was playing batsman. Aarjoo hit the bowl with the bat at straight side and he was claiming that it was six runs and I was disputing that it was a four runs. On the said issue, accused Aarjoo got annoyed with me and hit bat on my head. I became unconscious after receipt of injury. Other boys were also playing in the said ground. Others boys brought me to my house and thereafter my elder brother took me to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. I was admitted in the hospital and remained there for 3-4 days. Blood also came from my ears. Police came to me in AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi and recorded my statement which is Ex. PW-6/A bearing my signature at point-A. After my discharge, I returned to my house and I got treatment thereafter also. Police prepared the site plan at my instance in the police station and same is Ex. PW-6/B bearing my signature at point-A..."
20. Leading questions were put to Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) by the Chief Public Prosecutor for the same and he has deposed as Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:53:06 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 13 of 45 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
follows:
"It is correct that I accompanied the police to the place of incident on 16.05.2021 and pointed out the said place where the incident had taken place and police prepared the site plan of the said place at my instance. It is correct that police also arrested the accused on my pointing out from his jhuggie, number of which I do not recollect. It is correct that accused also produced the bat from his jhuggie, which was used by him to cause injury to me."
21. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, Mr. Mohd.
Jameel (PW-6) has deposed as follows:
"The incident had taken place on 15.05.2021. Accused Aarjoo was known to me since one or two years prior to the date of the incident as we used to play cricket in the park. I and accused Aarjoo were only playing cricket. (Vol) Other boys were also playing cricket in separate team. I and accused Aarjoo were playing cricket in the ground from 04.00 pm - 04.30 pm on the day of the incident. (Vol) I was hit injury with the bat by the accused between 05.00 pm - 05.30 pm. Again said, 05.30 pm -
06.00 p.m. I do not remember what had happened after I received injury as I became unconscious..."
22. It is clear from the evidence of Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) that he has fully supported the prosecution case by deposing in respect of all the details of the offence committed by the accused against him as well as the reason for his committing the offence. He has identified the accused as the culprit and the weapon of offence i.e. bat. His evidence is consistent with the statement made to the police. Nothing material for the accused has come forth in his cross examination. There is some variation in the timing but the same is Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:53:12 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 14 of 45 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
too small and immaterial to even be considered and it does not entitle the accused to be acquitted. The defence of the accused that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant with whom he has previous enmity and to satisfy his whimsical ego and revenge has not even put to Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) nor any suggestion to the same has been given. The veracity of the evidence of Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) remains unshattered making the same reliable.
Public witnesses/eye witnesses- Mr. Sanjay (PW-5) and Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11)
23. It is argued on behalf of the State that the evidence of Mr. Sanjay (PW-5) and Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11) may be considered for convicting the accused in view of Antosh v. State, CRL.A.415/2009, decided on 04.07.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while it is argued on behalf of the accused that the said witnesses are hostile and their evidence for acquittal of the accused may be considered in view of Govind v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024 decided on 14.11.2025 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
24. In the case of Antosh v. State, CRL.A.415/2009, decided on 04.07.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while discussing the judgments in the cases of Rajesh Yadav v. State of UP (2022) 12 SCC 200, C.Muniappan v. State of T.N.,(2010) 9 SCC 567; Khujji v. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627, SCC p. 635, para 6 mentioned that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:53:17 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 15 of 45 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. It was observed in the above stated case as follows:
20. To summarize, the principles which can be culled out from the aforesaid decision are as under :
a. The term 'hostile witness' would refer to a witness who deposes in favour of the opposite party.
b. A witness may turn hostile either at the stage of examination-in-chief itself, or later during the cross examination.
c. The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile, and the relevant parts of evidence which are admissible in law can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
d. It is imperative that if the examination-in-chief is complete, the cross examination should also be completed on the same day and must not be deferred for a long period of time as it may provide opportunity to the accused to pressurise and win over the witness.
25. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Govind v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024 decided on 14.11.2025, it has been observed as follows:
19. Similarly, in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2023) 6 SCC 605, the appellant was accused of murdering his wife with a bhojali (knife) which was found from an open place accessible to others. The Trial Court Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date:
Under section 308 of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:53:23 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 16 of 45 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
acquitted the accused though the High Court reversed the findings. While confirming the order of the Trial Court, this Court observed as under :
20. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement as required under section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law..."
.........
23. After the recovery, the pistol and cartridges were kept in the Malkhana, but the record does not indicate on which date these were handed over to PW-6 Baljeet Singh for deposit to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the same article was sent for forensic examination. The chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was not duly proved. Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the body of the deceased, such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence. Furthermore, the alleged motive, as projected by the prosecution, primarily pertains to the co-accused persons, who have either not been chargesheeted or have been acquitted by the Trial Court. The purported motive attributed to the appellant is founded merely on a speculative quid pro quo arrangement with the acquitted co-accused and lacks support from any credible evidence.
26. Although Mr. Sanjay (PW-5) has denied seeing accused hit Mr. Mohd. Jameel with a bat and has resiled from his earlier statement made to the police but he has supported the case partly by deposing that "...I along with my friend Rocky, Vickey, Mukesh were Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date:
Under section 308 of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.01.06 PS : Okhla Industrial Area. 14:53:28 +0530 State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 17 of 45 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
playing cricket and were waiting for our turn. In the meantime accused present in the court today namely Mohd. Aarjoo had some tussle with another person namely Jamil and they both started fighting and I with the help of other boys separated them. I found Jamil was injured and I came to know that Jamil was hit by a bat by the accused. Accused had taken the injured to the hospital and we also collected some money and gave to accused for treatment of injured Jamil but Dr. Bangali who runs a clinic refuse to treat Jamil and then Jamil was taken to some Govt. Hospital..." As he was suppressing material facts, he was cross examined on behalf of the State wherein he has deposed that "It is correct that accused Aarjoo was bating while Jamil had delivered the ball on which shot was made by accused Aarjoo and Aarjoo was saying it was sixer while Jamil was saying it is four. On this, quarrel took place between them. Vol. I came to know about these facts from the boys present there..." He has denied making the statement to the police that "accused Aarjoo had suddently hit the bat on the head of the Jamil in Anger and Aarjoo also hit Jamil on his head and other parts of the body due to which Jamil became unconscious and blood oozed out from his head." In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, he has deposed that "I was sitting under a tree when some people told me that quarrel was going on. I had not seen the quarrel between accused and injured. When I reached at the spot, the quarrel was already over. I did not seen any cricket bat in the hand of accused."
NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.06 14:53:34 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 18 of 45 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
27. The factum of the accused being present at the spot along with the complainant/injured/victim has been deposed by Mr. Sanjay (PW-5). He has also deposed regarding the factum of some tussle and fight between them and the witness with others separating them and finding Jameel being injured. He has even deposed regarding the details of the reason for the fight between them. This witness has only denied seeing accused hitting Mr. Mohd. Jameel on the head with a bat. Remaining part of the prosecution version has been deposed by Mr. Sanjay (PW-5) and is corroborative to the evidence of Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6).
28. Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11) has also not supported the prosecution version completely. He has even denied making any statement to the police. He has deposed that "...I was separating playing on the ground with my separate team and accused Aarzoo and Jamil were playing cricket separately as single single player match. I had seen that persons were gathered at the spot where Aarzoo and Jamil were playing. I had not seen the quarrel between Jamil and Aarzoo and I had not seen that accused Aarzoo hit the bat on the head of the Jamil. I do not know on what issue accused Aarzoo and injured Jamil was quarreling. I do not know as to why Jamil received injury. Thereafter I and accused Aarzoo taken the injured Jamil to the hospital from the spot..." In his cross examination on behalf of the State, he has admitted that he has friendly relations with the accused. He has also admitted that "...It is correct that when we are shifting the injured Jamil from the ground to the hospital in the Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 FIR No. 424/2021. 14:53:40 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 19 of 45 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
mean time somebody had informed the family members of the injured Jamil and on the way the brother of the Jamil namely Shakil came at there..."
29. The factum of the accused being present at the spot along with the complainant/injured/victim has also been deposed by Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11). He has also deposed regarding the factum of accused being present at the spot and playing cricket with Mr. Mohd. Jameel and later Mr. Mohd. Jameel being injured and then taken by this witness, accused and others to the hospital. This witness has denied seeing accused hitting Mr. Mohd. Jameel on the head with a bat. Remaining part of the prosecution version has been deposed by Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11) and is corroborative to the evidence of Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6).
30. It is clear from the evidence of Mr. Sanjay (PW-5) and Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11) that accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo and Mr. Mohd.
Jameel (PW-6) were playing cricket, then Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) was injured and he was taken to the doctor by these two witnesses, accused and others. The brother of Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) was informed and he also came.
31. It is clear that the reliance can be placed upon the evidence of Mr. Sanjay (PW-5) and Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11) in respect of the presence of the accused with Mr. Mohd. Jameel at the spot and that they were playing cricket and that Mr. Mohd. Jameel was injured.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITASessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:53:45 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 20 of 45 ::-
-:: 21 ::-
Eye witness-Mr. Mukesh (PW-10)
32. Mr. Mukesh (PW-10) has identified the accused as the culprit. He has deposed in his examination in chief as follows:
"On 15.05.2021 I was present at Mitti Park, Okhla Phase-I and I was seeing cricket match there. A cricket match was going on between Aarzoo and Jamil and both were playing the cricket. Thereafter both were quarrel on the issue of boundary sought and they were discussing on issue of claiming six run or four run and thereafter a talking was took between Jamil and Aarzoo. Thereafter Aarzoo hit bat on Jamil and after receiving injury on head caused by the Aarzoo injured Jamil fell down on the ground. Thereafter other players were immediately took him by the scooty from the spot for medical examination. Injured Jamil immediately took to the nearest clinic of the hospital for the medical examination. Thereafter other family members of the Jamil came and Jamil was shifted to the other hospital for his medical treatment. I was inquired by the Police verbally about the incident..."
33. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, Mr. Mukesh (PW-10) has deposed as follows:
"The incident took between 04:30 and 05:00 PM. On the day of incident I was watching match and I was present about 50-60 feet from the playing spot. A single single player match of the cricket was going on. Jamil was doing bowling and Aarzoo was doing batting. I had seen when accused Aarzoo hit Jamil. I had clearly seen the incident from the above said distance. The nearest person were standing at playing spot immediately rushed and thereafter I immediately reached the spot when Jamil was fell down. I did not remove the injured from the spot not I went to the hospital. I did not see the family members at the spot. I Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
Under section 308 of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:53:51 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 21 of 45 ::-
-:: 22 ::-
was normally inquired by the IO in the PS on next date of the incident. My signature was not obtained by the IO on any documents..."
34. On perusal of the evidence of Mr. Mukesh (PW-10), it transpires that accused has committed the offence, as elaborated in the case of the prosecution. Nothing material for the accused has come forth in his cross examination. In fact, the details of the alleged incident which were not deposed by the witness in his examination in chief, were deposed in his cross examination i.e. "... A single single player match of the cricket was going on. Jamil was doing bowling and Aarzoo was doing batting. I had seen when accused Aarzoo hit Jamil..." Nothing is brought forth in his cross examination on behalf of the accused to shatter the veracity of his testimony. He has clearly deposed that while playing cricket in a single single player match, accused and Mr. Mohd. Jameel had a fight and the accused hit Mr. Mohd. Jameel with a bat on his head. The defence of the accused that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant with whom he has previous enmity and to satisfy his whimsical ego and revenge has not even put to Mr. Mukesh (PW-10) nor any suggestion to the same has been given. The veracity of the testimony of Mr. Mukesh (PW-10) could not be shattered by the accused.
Evidence of Mr. Shakeel Ahmed (PW-7)
35. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed (PW-7) is the brother of injured Mr. Mohd.
Jameel (PW-6). He has identified the accused. He has deposed that Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date:
Under section 308 of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:53:57 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 22 of 45 ::-
-:: 23 ::-
on 15.05.2021 at about 05.00 - 05.30 pm, while he was present at his house, he received a call from his friend Mr. Shishu, who had informed him that he alongwith his brother and accused Aarjoo were playing cricket alongwith other boys. his brother was bowling and accused Aarjoo hit the ball. Accused Aarjoo had hot words exchanged with his brother with regard to six runs or four runs. When his brother was moving for other ball, accused Aarjoo hit the bat on the head of his brother from behind. His friend also informed him that his brother is unconscious and he had brought his brother near B-80 Company, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi. He also informed him that his brother was also bleeding from his ears. He reached there and took his brother to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi with the help of Mr. Shishu in the car. He also made a call to the police from the said place. When police reached in the hospital, his brother was got admitted in the hospital. Police made enquiry from him in the hospital and recorded his statement there. Accused is already known to him as he is friend of his brother.
36. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed (PW-7) has deposed that he received call from his friend Shishu at around 05:30 pm. The incident was narrated to him by his friend telephonically. He reached at the said place where his brother was brought by his friend within 05 minutes from his house. He did not remember by what conveyance his brother was brought from the playground to the aforesaid place by his friend. Accused was known to him from school days as they were Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:54:03 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 23 of 45 ::-
-:: 24 ::-
studying in the same school. His statement was recorded in the police station in the night hours by the police, but he did not recollect the exact time. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital, as well as, in the police station. He has denied that there was previous enmity with his family with the accused or that due to said enmity accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
37. Nothing material for the accused has been brought forth in the lengthy cross examination of Mr. Shakeel Ahmed (PW-7). He is a hearsay witness in respect of the alleged offence. However, his role is established in respect of taking his injured brother Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) to the hospital on receiving information from his friend Mr. Shishu. In the MLC (Ex. PW-14/A) of Mr. Mohd. Jameel, it is mentioned that he was brought to the hospital by his brother with history of assault by one known person.
38. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of Mr. Shakeel Ahmed (PW-7) that indeed he was informed about the alleged. incident by his friend Mr. Shishu and he took his brother to the hospital for his treatment and his testimony supports the prosecution case.
Medical and forensic evidence
39. Dr. Piyush Aggarwal (PW-1) has proved the x-ray report of one Jameel dated 15.05.2021 (Ex. PW-1/1) alongwith x-ray prepared by Dr. Akhil Baby, who has left the hospital and his present Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:54:09 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 24 of 45 ::-
-:: 25 ::-
whereabouts are not known deposing that he is well conversant with his handwriting and signature as he has seen him during writing and signing the documents in official course.
40. Dr. Vikas Rao (PW-9) was discharged on the request of the prosecution as he is not in a position to identify the writing and signatures of Dr. Nandeesh B. Kuravatti since he has never worked with him.
41. Dr. Tejparkasah Sinha (PW-14) has proved the MLC bearing No. 500273390 dated 15.05.2021 of the patient Mr. Jameel with alleged history of assault (Ex. PW-14/A) which was prepared by Dr. Nandeesh, who had examined the patient. He brought the attested copy of transfer out / referral summary of the patient Jameel, running in four pages (Ex. PW-14/B). As per the MLC report, the nature of injury is grievous and the kind of weapon is used as blunt. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, Dr. Tejparkasah Sinha (PW-14) has deposed that on perusal of the file / attested copy of transfer out / referral summary of the patient Jameel, he came to know that the patient has sustained the injury on his head. The patient could not be admitted in the hospital as no bed was vacant and so the patient was referred to another hospital. At this stage, he cannot tell how many days patient was admitted in another hospital. Opinion can be given after seeing the discharge report of another hospital. He has admitted to be correct that as per available record at this time, he cannot say whether it is grievous Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:54:14 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 25 of 45 ::-
-:: 26 ::-
injury or not.
42. Dr. Nandeesh B. Kuravatti (PW-15) has deposed that on 15.05.2021, he was working as Junior Resident at Emergency Medicine, at AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. On that day, the patient namely Jameel was brought to the hospital. He examined the patient and he found that he had sustained the injury i.e. abrasion on left toe and head. Thereafter, he prepared the MLC bearing No. 500273390 dated 15.05.2021 of the patient Jameel with alleged history of assault (Ex. PW-14/A). The nature of injury is grievous and kind of weapon is used as blunt. All the details are mentioned in the MLC report. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, Dr. Nandeesh B. Kuravatti (PW-15) has deposed that he had opined the nature of injury as grievous. He did not have the entire record available with him and he is not aware about the duration of admission of the patient in the hospital. It is a head injury i.e. sub-dural heamotama and extra dural heamotama. If he had the entire record, he shall be able to assist the Court in detailing the exact nature of injury and as to how it is grievous. Apparently, from the record available with him i.e. the copy of the MLC it is a simple injury. In the discharge summary it is not mentioned whether or not the injury is simple or not. In his re- examination on behalf of the State, Dr. Nandeesh B. Kuravatti (PW-15) has deposed that he gave the opinion regarding the injury being grievous on the basis of his examination of the patient and as it was head injury i.e. sub-dural heamotama and extra-dural Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:54:20 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 26 of 45 ::-
-:: 27 ::-
heamotama. He was constrained to send the patient to another hospital as there as no bed available in AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. At the time of examination of the patient, he sustained the head injury i.e. sub-dural heamotama and extra-dural heamotama was small, but it could also go bigger resulting in longer hospital stay and observation for many days. As there was a history of ENT Bleed i.e. ear bleed, he had given a call to the Department of Neurosurgery as such bleeding could be due to a head injury.
43. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Amar Singh & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 4894 while emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of medical witness in such circumstances in the case of Kartarey and Ors. v.
State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172 as follows:
"We take this opportunity of emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of the medical witness, who had examined the injuries of the victim, more specifically on this point, for the proper administration of justice particularly in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same species, example stab wound, and the problem before of the Court is whether all or any those injuries could be caused with one or more than one weapon. It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may sometimes, cause aberration of the course of justice".
44. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of State v. Kamlesh Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:54:26 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 27 of 45 ::-
-:: 28 ::-
Bahadur, Crl.L.P. 519/2019 decided on 12.09.2023 set aside the conviction under section 308 of the IPC and converted the same to section 323 of the IPC. It was observed as follows :
"...In Ramesh V State 2010 (I) JCC 796, this Court altered the conviction from 308/34 to 323/34 by holding that assault was not premeditated and merely be- cause an injury was found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to com- mit culpable homicide. In Sunder V State 2010 (1) JCC 700, this Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 308 to 323 IPC by holding that in order to prove offence under Section 308 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the injury was caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of appellant would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Raju @ Rajpal and others V State of Delhi 2014 (3) JCC 1894, this Court altered the conviction from Section 308 to 323/34 by holding that the nature of injuries were simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death. In Ashok Kumar and another V State of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 17/2011 decided on 20.02.2015, this Court altered the conviction of Section 308 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and held that injuries were opined by the doctor as simple caused by a blunt object.
Nature of injuries is not such which will be sufficient to indicate that the appellants had any intention or know- ledge that by this act they would have caused death of complainant. In Pawan Chaddha V State Criminal Appeal 640/2011 decided on 27.01.2016 by this Court, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 308 and Section 323/34 IPC while the co-accused were held guilty and convicted under Section 323/34 IPC...
Digitally signed by NIVEDITANIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 FIR No. 424/2021. 14:54:31 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 28 of 45 ::-
-:: 29 ::-
There was no premeditation. The entire incident took place on the spur of the moment. Injuries were opined to be simple. The ingredients of section 308 IPC are not at- tracted and the case falls within the ambit and scope of section 323 IPC..."
45. ASI Phool Karan (PW-4) has proved that during September 2023, he had collected the result from FSL Rohini of this case and thereafter, collected the subsequent opinion of the doctor from AIIMS Trauma Centre regarding weapon of offence and nature of injuries of this case.
46. The subsequent opinion (not proved) of the doctor from AIIMS Trauma Centre regarding weapon of offence and nature of injuries of this case prepared by Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi Mylapalli (not examined by the prosecution) indicates that the injury, as mentioned in the MLC of Mr. Mohd. Jameel being caused by the recovered weapon-cricket bat cannot be ruled out.
47. There is no defence evidence led by the accused in explanation to the injuries sustained by Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6). The MLC (Ex. PW-14/A) of Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) was prepared on 15.05.2021 at 20:27:48. The alleged incident had occurred on 15.05.2021 between 05:30 pm to 06:00 pm as per the complaint (Ex. PW-6/A). Apparently shortly of receiving the injuries, Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) was removed from the place of incident to hospital where he was medically examined and given treatment.
Digitally signedNIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:54:37 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 29 of 45 ::-
-:: 30 ::-
48. It is clear from the evidence of the medical witnesses, as above, that Mr. Mohd. Jameel has suffered a head injury which is grievous and caused by blunt object. Although there is injury on the toes also but it the injury on the head, which is a vital part of the body, that is the basis of this case. The treating doctor who had also given the opinion regarding the nature of injury has been examined by the prosecution. Nothing material for the accused has come forth in his cross examination. There is a head injury and injury on toes on the person of Mr. Mohd. Jameel. However, even if the subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence and injury has not been proved by the prosecution, then also considering the proved medical record, the location of the injury i.e. head with weapon of offence i.e. bat which is a blunt object, the nature of injury suffered by Mr. Mohd. Jameel is "grievous". It is also clear that the patient was sent to another hospital as there was no bed available in AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. Essentially, it is clear that there is a head injury caused by a blunt weapon.
49. As regards the FSL report (Ex. P-1), the same has been admitted by the accused under section 294 of the Cr.P.C.. The same reveals that the exhibits examined in the FSL are the weapon of offence i.e. bat and the blood of the injured.
50. The medical and forensic evidence indicates that Mr. Mohd.
Jameel has suffered grievous injuries which are caused by a blunt Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:54:42 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 30 of 45 ::-
-:: 31 ::-
weapon.
Weapon of offence
51. As regards the weapon of offence i.e. bat, the prosecution has been able to prove the same properly. The bat (Ex. PW-6/P-1) produced in the Court during the evidence was identified by Mr. Mohd.
Jameel (PW-6), SI Suresh Chand Meena (PW-13) and its identity was not disputed by the accused in the evidence of HC Ram Avtar (PW-12). The bat was recovered at the instance of the accused and seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW-12/D). The accused got effected recovery of one cricket bat from his house. There were words UST and Regd. No. 409031 since 1948 were written on the cricket bat. The accused has not even disputed that a bat was recovered from his residence at his instance and it was used in the commission of the alleged offence.
52. Although it has been argued on behalf of the accused that similar bats are easily available in the market and planted on the accused but this contention is without any substance as there is nothing on the record to indicate that the bat was planted upon the accused as it was recovered at his instance from his residence and sealed in his presence.
53. Therefore, there is no doubt regarding the same alleged weapon used by the accused in the commission of the offence and the one produced in the Court being the same.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06
14:54:48
Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 31 of 45 ::-
-:: 32 ::-
Investigation
54. It is argued on behalf of the State that the investigation has been conducted fairly and properly while it is submitted on behalf of the accused that the investigation is shoddy and defective as no public witness has been associated, Mr. Shishu, who had informed Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, brother of Mr. Mohd. Jameel about the incident has not been examined, the Bengali doctor has not been examined, documents are fabricated, etc.
55. The prosecution story was set into motion on the basis of information received from control room which was recorded by SI Akhilesh Kumar (PW-2) vide GD No. 24-A at about 07:52 p.m. (Ex. PW-2/A) on 15.05.2021. Copy of GD was given to SI Suresh for necessary action.
56. ASI Murari Lal (PW-3) registered the formal FIR (Ex. PW-3/A) of the case and issued certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW-3/B).
57. SI Suresh Chand Meena (PW-13) alongwith HC Ram Avtar (PW-12), on receipt of a call at about 07:52 pm regarding commission of offence, had gone to the spot of incident i.e. near the railway line, Okhla, Phase-1, New Delhi where they came to know that the injured has been removed to the AIIMS trauma centre by public persons. Thereafter, they also went to AIIMS trauma centre and met the concerned doctor who gave the MLC. Then they met the injured Mr. Mohd. Jamil who was admitted in Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:54:54 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 32 of 45 ::-
-:: 33 ::-
the hospital and the SI Suresh Chand Meena (PW-13) recorded his statement (Ex. PW-6/A). The asal tehrir/rukka (Ex. PW-13/A) was prepared by SI Suresh Chand Meena (PW-13) and he gave it to HC Ram Avtar (PW-12) for taking it to the PS for registration of the FIR. On reaching the PS, HC Ram Avtar (PW-12) got the FIR (Ex. PW-3/A) registered by the duty officer ASI Murari Lal (PW-3). The duty officer handed over the asal tehrir as well as copy of FIR to me for taking the same to SI Suresh Chand Meena. On reaching the hospital, he handed over the asal tehrir and copy of the FIR to the Investigation Officer and then both of them went to the spot of incident. Investigation Officer made inquiries from the public persons and inquired about the CCTV cameras if any. None of the public persons disclosed anything and the CCTV cameras also could not be located. On 16.05.2021, at about 02:00 pm, injured Mr. Mohd. Jamil also met them at the spot and got the site plan (Ex. PW-6/B) prepared. He led them to the house of accused Mr. Mohd. Aarzoo who was available at his residence. Investigation Officer made inquiry from the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo (Ex. PW-12/B). His personal search was taken vide personal search memo (Ex. PW-12/A). The disclosure statement of the accused (Ex. PW-12/C) was recorded. At his instance, a cricket bat/balla, with words UST and Regd. No. 409031 since 1948 written on the cricket bat, was recovered and was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW-12/D). Thereafter, the accused was brought along with the sealed cricket bat/balla to the Police Station. The Investigation Officer sent the accused with some other police Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date:
Under section 308 of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:54:59 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 33 of 45 ::-
-:: 34 ::-
official to the hospital for his medical examination.
58. ASI Phool Karan (PW-4) alongwith ASI Avinesh Tyagi (PW-8) had taken injured to AIIMS Trauma Centre where blood sample of injured Mr. Mohd. Jamil was taken by the doctor. It was sealed in a pulanda with the seal of hospital and was given to me along with sample seal. Seizure memo (Ex. PW-4/A) was prepared and the blood sample was deposited in the Malkhana. During September, 2023, he had collected the result from FSL Rohini of this case and thereafter, collected the subsequent opinion of the doctor from AIIMS Trauma Centre regarding weapon of offence and nature of injuries of this case. Thereafter, in December, 2023, he prepared the chargesheet of this case and filed the same in the Court.
59. It is revealed in the cross examination of the Investigation Officer and other police witnesses of investigation that the defence of the accused of innocence and his false implication due to previous enmity with Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6), who is complainant/injured, have not even put to the prosecution witnesses.
60. The fact the there are public witnesses associated in the investigation falsifies the contention of the accused. The factum of non examination of Mr. Shishu, who informed the brother of the injured about the complainant about the incident, does not affect the merits of the case in respect of commission of the offence by Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:55:05 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 34 of 45 ::-
-:: 35 ::-
the accused. The factum of the Bengali doctor not being examined also is immaterial as he had not medically examined the injured nor given him any medical treatment. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed (PW-7) had taken his brother Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) to the hospital where he was given medical treatment.
61. There is nothing shown by the accused that the investigation has not been conducted properly or fairly or that important witnesses were not associated in the investigation.
62. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Kishore Chand v.
State of H.P., AIR 1990 SC 2140 that undoubtedly, heinous crimes are committed under great secrecy and that investigation of a crime is a difficult and tedious task. However, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the Investigating Officer has taken the accused for ride and trampled upon his fundamental personal liberty and lugged him in the capital offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC by freely fabricating evidence against the innocent. The liberty of a citizen is precious and its deprivation shall be only in accordance with law. Before accusing an innocent person of the commission of a grave crime like the one punishable under S.302 IPC an honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation has to be made and to feel sure that the person suspected of the crime alone was responsible to commit the offence. Indulging in free fabrication of the record is a deplorable conduct on the part of an investigating officer which undermines the public confidence Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. SHARMA 2026.01.06 FIR No. 424/2021. 14:55:12 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 35 of 45 ::-
-:: 36 ::-
reposed in the investigating agency. Therefore, greater care and circumspection are needed by the investigating agency in this regard. It is time that the investigating agencies evolve new and scientific investigating methods, taking aid of rapid scientific development in the field of investigation. It is also the duty of the State i.e. Central or State Governments to organize periodical refresher courses for the investigating officers to keep them abreast of the latest scientific development in the art of investigation and the march of law so that the real offender would be brought to book and the innocent would not be exposed to prosecution.
63. The investigation conducted in the present case has been deposed by police witnesses. The documents have been proved by their authors and signatories to the same. However, there is nothing on the record which could show that the investigation has not been conducted properly, fairly and impartially. It must be mentioned here again that the prosecution story is reliable and is worthy of credence, as discussed above.
64. It is the actual crime which is important than the investigation.
Where the actual crime is being elaborated and proved in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, then the investigation becomes less important.
65. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:55:18 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 36 of 45 ::-
-:: 37 ::-
investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or it has not been proved in evidence at trial, does it absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is logically in the negative as any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
66. Weapon of offence i.e. cricket bat was recovered at the instance of the accused from his residence and it could the injury suffered by the complainant/injured, as the medical and forensic evidence. The documents have been proved by their authors and signatories to the same.
67. In the present case, the investigation which has been conducted is fair, proper and impartial.
Mens rea and defence of the accused
68. Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
69. In the judgment Partap v. The State of Uttar Pardesh, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 966 has reported that the burden is on the accused Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:55:25 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 37 of 45 ::-
-:: 38 ::-
to establish a plea of self defence and that on the prosecution to prove its case. The burden on the accused is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability.
70. The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and un- amenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
71. In the present case, a story has been projected that accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo has committed the alleged offence. This version appears to be true as there is reason shown why he would do so. It is proved by the prosecution in the evidence of Mr. Mohd. Jameel Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:55:30 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 38 of 45 ::-
-:: 39 ::-
(PW-6) and Mr. Mukesh (PW-10) that the complainant/injured and the accused were playing single single cricket match in which the complainant/injured was balling and the accused was batting. They had a fight over the number of runs made by the accused and then the accused hit the head of the complainant/injured with the bat. Even Mr. Sanjay (PW-5) and Mr. Rohit Kumar (PW-11) have supported the prosecution version that the complainant/injured and the accused were playing single single cricket match and the complainant/injured was injured. Apparently, there was no dispute or enmity between accused and victim/injured as the accused had failed to put any such question or suggestion to the material witnesses nor led any evidence in his own defence.
72. In the present case, there is unshattered evidence on record led by the prosecution to show that the accused did have a motive to commit the offence. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. However, there can be no sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. These observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
73. The case of the prosecution has to stand of its own legs and is Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No. 424/2021. Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:55:35 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 39 of 45 ::-
-:: 40 ::-
required to prove all its allegations against the accused and all the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused.
74. Therefore, as the prosecution version is reliable and believable that accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo had committed the alleged offence, the defence of the accused of innocence does not appear to be plausible that he has not committed any offence. There does appear to be criminal intention and mens rea on the part of accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo.
Final conclusion
75. The prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case against the accused by leading its evidence which makes the prosecution story believable and probable. In the instant case, the evidence and different statements of the witnesses of the prosecution do not suffer from any infirmities or discrepancies. Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence. In fact what emerges from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo has committed the alleged offence.
76. Since the evidence of the prosecution is reliable and believable and does not suffer from any contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:55:40 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 40 of 45 ::-
-:: 41 ::-
has been able to bring home the charge against accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo. The prosecution story does inspire confidence and is worthy of credence.
77. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
ii. The facts so established should be consistent onlywith the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; iii. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
iv. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
78. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it stands established that the accused had committed the offence punishable under section 308 of the IPC that on 15.05.2021 at about 05:30 pm to 06:00 pm, near Railway Line, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo hit the cricket bat on the head and body of the complainant Mr. Mohd. Jameel and had NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.06 14:55:46 +0530 Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 41 of 45 ::-
-:: 42 ::-
caused grievous injuries on his body with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he had caused the death Mr. Mohd. Jameel, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
79. Onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case failing which the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the prosecution is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected.
80. In the present case, when the prosecution evidence is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other material on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, the deposition does inspire confidence and is reliable and worthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, the conviction can be based on such evidence. Prosecution has disclosed true genesis of crime.
81. In evidence of Mr. Mohd. Jameel, complainant/injured (PW-6) and other prosecution witnesses, there are no discrepancies, deficiencies, infirmities or inconsistencies. Undue weight or importance cannot be attached with elicited deficiencies, infirmities and drawback pointed out in their evidence as they do Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024.
Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL Date: SHARMA 2026.01.06 Under section 308 of the IPC. 14:55:51 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area. State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 42 of 45 ::- -:: 43 ::-
not effect the merits of the case. Hyper technical approach cannot be adopted to attach undue importance to such discrepancies or infirmities in deposition of prosecution witnesses or technical defects/laches committed by Investigating Officer, so as to reject the prosecution evidence as a whole. It would be unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny, if these deficiencies or infirmities are made basis to reject the version of prosecution in toto. A private witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of the incident as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. It may have so happened that complainant/injured and the eye witnesses were overtaken or overawed by events, in the course of their deposition or when the incident took place. Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6) could not have anticipated the incident, which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties of the witness therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on mind of one person, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another; since powers of observation differ from person to person. People by large cannot accurately recall the conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They only can recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. Even a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events, which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused or mixed up when interrogated Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No. 424/2021. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under section 308 of the IPC. SHARMA Date: 2026.01.06 14:55:58 +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 43 of 45 ::-
-:: 44 ::-
later on.
82. The facts describing the offence committed by the accused of attacking the complainant/injured and hitting his head and body with bat are proved successfully on record by prosecution by leading its evidence. All aforesaid facts proved when taken together, brings the act of accused in the ambit of commission of offence of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, since the assault with a bat by accused was on vital body part i.e. head of Mr. Mohd. Jameel (PW-6), who is the complainant/injured, and consequently, the complainant/injured received grievous injury on his head and injury on his toes. Blows by such object with force on such vital body part i.e. head of complainant/injured would be endangering his life. Entire above discussions have led to the conclusion that prosecution has been successful in proving its case against accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo for commission of offence under section 308 of the IPC.
83. The prosecution has been able to successfully prove that it is accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo and none else who is culprit and has committed the alleged offence.
84. The prosecution has successfully proved that on 15.05.2021 at about 05:30 pm to 06:00 pm, near Railway Line, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo hit the cricket bat on the head and body of the complainant Mr. Mohd. Jameel and had Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 424/2021. SHARMA 2026.01.06 14:56:05 Under section 308 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 44 of 45 ::-
-:: 45 ::-
caused grievous injuries on his body with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he had caused the death Mr. Mohd. Jameel, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
85. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the charge against accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo and he is liable to be convicted for commission of the offence punishable under section 308 of the IPC.
86.Accordingly, accused Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo is hereby convicted of the charges for the offence of attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 308 of the IPC.
87.Let convict Mr. Mohd. Aarjoo be heard on the point of sentence to be awarded to him.
NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL ANIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.06 14:56:13 +0530 Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 06th day of January, 2026.
Principal District & Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 06.01.2026.
*********************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 5070/2024.
FIR No. 424/2021.
Under section 308 of the IPC.
PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Mohd. Aarjoo. -:: Page 45 of 45 ::-