Delhi District Court
State vs Naseem on 15 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET01-000610-2018
SC No:- 237/18
FIR No : 351/12
Police Station : Mandawali
Under Section (s) : 307 IPC
In the Sessions case of:-
State
versus
Naseem
S/o Mr. Umardaraj
R/o Thanwar Wali Gali
Nai Basti, Kasba-Meerapur
Tehil Jansath, District-Muzaffarnagar, UP
Date of Institution : 30.01.2018
Date of reserving Order : 18.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025
Final Judgment : Accused is acquitted.
Appearances :-
For the State : Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld.
Addl. PP.
For accused : Mr. H. Rehman, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, accused Naseem was sent up for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') with allegations that on 26.07.2012 at about 10:30 AM on the first floor of House AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:48:44 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 1 of 16 No.90, Room No. 28, Gali No. 3/23, Railway Colony, Mandawali, Delhi accused had caused injuries on the right side of neck of injured Jyoti with knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that attack caused death of victim Jyoti, he would have been guilty of murder.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.07.2012 an information qua stabbing to victim Jyoti by her husband was received which information was recorded vide DD No.22A. Thereafter, SI Narender Kumar along with Ct. Rahul Kumar reached at the spot at House No. 90, First Floor, Gali No. 3, Railway Colony, Mandawali where blood was lying at the first floor and blood stained kitchen knife of black colour was also found lying. The police officials called crime team at the spot. On receipt of information regarding admission of injured Jyoti in LNJP hospital, SI Narender Kumar left Ct. Rahul at the spot and went to the hospital. However, injured was already discharged by then after treatment. SI Narender collected MLC of injured and again went back at the spot. He recorded the statement of victim Jyoti, prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Rahul. The FIR in question got registered. SI Narender traced accused Naseem and arrested him on 27.09.2012.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was filed by IO against accused Naseem before the Court of Ld. MM-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 11.10.2017. After statutory AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:48:49 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 2 of 16 compliance under Section 207 IPC, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions and assigned to this Court vide order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Ld. District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Charge
4. Vide order dated 20.02.2018, accused Naseem was formally charged for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC.
Prosecution Evidence
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses.
Public Witnesses
6. PW-6 Jyoti and PW-7 Raju are the star witnesses of prosecution and their testimonies would be discussed in detail at later stage.
Police Witnesses
7. PW-1 is Ex-Sub Inspector Rama Shankar who deposed that on 26.07.2012, he was on duty at Police Station Mandawali from 8:00 AM to 04:00 PM. At about 11:10 AM, a call was received from E-50 regarding falling of a girl from roof at Gali No. 3, House No. 90, Railway Colony, Mandawali. He recorded the said information vide DD No. 22A and marked it to SI Narender. He proved said DD vide Ex. PW 1/A (OSR). He further deposed that on same day at about 03:00 PM, on receipt of rukka which was given to him by Ct. Rahul, he recorded FIR No. AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:48:56 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 3 of 16 351/2012 which was typed by CIPA Operator. He proved original FIR as Ex. PW 1/B and endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW 1/C. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Rahul for handing over the same to IO/ SI Narender.
8. PW-3 is Inspector Praveen Kumar who deposed that on 20.03.2017, investigation of the case was assigned to him on transfer of previous IO and on perusal of the case file, he found all the investigation had already been completed and he prepared the charge-sheet against the accused Naseem under Section 307 IPC and filed in the Court through SHO.
9. PW-5 is HC Rahul Kumar who deposed that on 26.07.2012 on receipt of DD No. 22, he along with SI Narender reached at House No. 90, First Floor, Gali No. 3, Railway Colony, Mandawali and found blood lying on the floor of the room of the first floor. One knife smeared with blood was also found lying on the floor there. On inquiry, it was found that injured Jyoti had not fallen from the roof and her husband had inflicted knife injury to her. It was further informed that injured had already been shifted to unknown hospital. Crime team was called at the spot. PW-5 deposed that at about 12:15 PM, information was received through DD No. 24-A that injured was admitted in LNJP hospital. Subsequent to which, IO went to LNJP hospital and in the meantime, crime team reached at the spot and inspected the same. Thereafter, IO lifted blood, blood stained earth, earth without blood and knife from the spot. Sketch of knife was also prepared vide Ex. PW 5/A. The exhibits were kept in separate boxes and AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:01 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 4 of 16 pullandas were prepared with the seal of 'NK' and 4 sealed parcels were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 5/B.
10. PW-5 deposed that in the meanwhile complainant/ injured Jyoti reached at the spot and IO recorded her statement. IO further prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR through duty officer, PW-5 handed over the same to the IO. He further deposed that IO made inquiries from public persons present there and searched for the accused but he could not be apprehended at that time. Case property of the present case i.e. knife could not be produced during testimony of PW-5 as it was reportedly burnt along with case properties of other cases due to the fire took place in malkhana and FIR of the same was also registered vide FIR No. 402/22 Police Station Madhu Vihar. MHC(M) also furnished his report in this regard on the summons along with copy of FIR No. 4022 vide Ex. PW 5/C.
11. PW-8 is Retired SI Ahtasham Ali who deposed that on 26.07.2012 at about 1:00 PM, he received an information from IO/SI Narender. Thereafter, he along with photographer Ct. Satender and ASI Sanjay Saxena (Finger Print Proficient) reached at House No. 90, First Floor, Gali no. 3, Railway Colony, Mandawali, Delhi where SI Narender met them. He inspected the scene of crime, blood as well as one knife having blood stains found at the spot. The photographer Ct. Satender clicked the photographs and he prepared report regarding scene of crime and handed over the same to the IO/Narender. He further deposed that IO seized the blood sample in a gauze, blood stained knife, earth AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:06 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 5 of 16 control with blood and earth control without blood. He proved his SOC report vide Ex.PW8/A.
12. PW-9 is IO Inspector Narender Kumar who deposed that on 26.07.2012, on receipt of DD No. 22, he along with Ct. Rahul Kumar reached at the spot i.e. House No. 90, First Floor, Gali No. 3, Railway Colony, Mandawali where blood was lying at the first floor and a blood stained kitchen knife of black colour was also lying there. They came to know that injured did not fall from the roof but was stabbed by her husband and her family members had taken her to some unknown hospital. He made request to send the crime team at the spot and at about 12:15 PM, information was received from LNJP hospital vide DD no. 24 A regarding admission of injured Jyoti in the hospital on which he left Ct. Rahul at the spot. He proceeded to hospital where he collected the MLC of injured and came to know that injured had been discharged from the hospital after treatment. He came back at the spot and crime team also reached there. The spot was inspected by the crime team and Incharge crime team handed over his report to him vide Ex.PW8/A.
13. PW-9 deposed that he lifted the blood in gauze, blood stained earth, earth without blood and a knife from the spot and prepared the sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW5/A. The exhibits were kept in separate boxes and pullandas were prepared and sealed with the seal of NK and the said four pullandas were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. After use, seal was handed over to Ct. Rahul. Meanwhile, the complainant also reached there and he recorded her statement vide Ex.PW6/A. He thereafter, prepared AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:11 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 6 of 16 the rukka vide Ex.PW9/A and handed over to Ct. Rahul for registration of FIR. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/B at the instance of complainant, made inquiries from the nearby area and searched for the accused but accused could not be traced at that time. He recorded the statements of public witnesses including family members of victim as well as statement of Incharge Crime Team. He further deposed that during investigation, accused was searched at his native place also but he was not found there. On 27.09.2012, accused was produced in the Police Station by his brother Akeel and after interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/C. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/D. After medical examination, accused was sent to lockup and he was produced before the court and sent to JC. He deposed that during investigation, he had taken final opinion on the MLC of injured and thereafter, he was transferred and submitted the file to the MHC(R). During recording of examination in chief of PW-9, HC Ravi Kant no. 807/East, MHC(M) CP, Police Station Mandawali appeared and submitted that case property of this case i.e. knife could not be found as same was burnt along with case properties of other cases in the fire which took place in the malkhana regarding which FIR no. 402/2022 Police Station Madhu Vihar was registered. MHC(M) furnished his report on the summons along with copy of FIR no. 402/2022 vide Ex.PW9/E. Expert witnesses
14. PW-2 is Dr. S. N. Basna, Chief Medical Officer, LNJP Hospital, Delhi who deposed on behalf of Dr. Simple, JR as said doctor had left the services of hospital. She deposed that AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:15 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 7 of 16 according to MLC of victim Jyoti, she was brought to the hospital by her brother with alleged history of assault and as per the MLC, she was medically examined by Dr. Simple and one puncturing injury of size 1x1 cm was found on her neck. She further deposed that after examination, patient was referred to ENT department for further examination and opinion. PW-2 proved the MLC as Ex. PW 2/A.
15. PW-4 is Dr. Nikhil, Assistant Professor, Department of ENT, Maulana Azad, Medial College, Delhi who deposed on behalf of Dr. Tripti, SR, ENT as said doctor had left the services of hospital. He deposed that on MLC No. 075751 dated 26.07.2012 of patient Jyoti, Dr. Tripti had mentioned that patient was fit for statement from ENT side. He proved the noting of Dr. Tripti on MLC as Ex. PW 4/A. He further deposed that on the MLC, Dr. Tripti had also opined the nature of injury as 'simple' from ENT side.
16. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
Statement of Accused person(s)
17. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused Naseem was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating evidence appeared against him during trial were put to him. Accused though denied the said evidence and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. Matter thereafter, proceeded for recording of defence evidence. Since, accused did not wish to AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:20 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 8 of 16 lead any defence evidence, the matter straightaway proceeded for final arguments.
Final Arguments on behalf of Both Sides
18. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP for State and the accused persons. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had caused injuries on the right side of neck of Jyoti with a knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that attack death of Jyoti had been caused, he would have been guilty of murder. It is argued that victim/ PW-6 Jyoti clearly deposed regarding the factum of injury received by her at the hands of accused Naseem who was her husband at the relevant date and time. It is further argued that testimony of PW-6 was duly supported by PW-7 Raju and other police as well as expert witnesses. PW-2 Dr. S. N. Basna, CMO, LNJP hospital duly proved MLC of injured Jyoti vide Ex. PW 2/A wherein details of injury was mentioned as; 'penetrating injury to left side of neck 1x1cm. It is thus, prayed that accused is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and be suitably punished.
19. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the case of prosecution suffers from material lapses and admittedly there is no mens rea in commission of alleged offences by the accused. It is argued that both accused and victim are husband and wife and testimony of injured Jyoti clearly reflects that the alleged injury was caused to her during scuffle AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:24 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 9 of 16 accidentally and thus, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the accused.
Analysis and Findings
20. Before embarking on the discussion of appreciation of evidence, cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence must be kept in mind, according to which a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and more serious the offence, stricter is the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. Though it is neither possible nor prudent to have a straight- jacket formula or principle which would apply to all cases without variance and every case has to be appreciated on its own facts and in light of the evidence led by the parties, it is for the Court to examine the cumulative effect of the evidence in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
21. Suffice it to say, PW-6 Jyoti is the only material and pivotal witness on which edifice of the prosecution case is built. Thus, her testimony needs to be evaluated carefully. During her examination, PW-6 deposed that she got married with accused Naseem 17 years ago and out of the said wedlock, one son namely Sultan was born. After marriage, she started residing with her husband Naseem (accused) at Kasba Meerapur, Tehsil Janshat, District Muzaffar Nagar, UP. She deposed that 4-5 days prior to the incident in present case, a quarrel had taken place between her AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:29 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 10 of 16 and accused Naseem. Thereafter, she came to her parental house i.e. railway colony, Mandawali. She did not remember the date, month and year due to lapse of time, however, in the morning, accused Naseem came to her parental house and met her. PW-1 deposed that at that time, her parents and brother were not present and accused Naseem asked her to come with him but she refused. She told accused that "jab mummy- papa ayenge, to main unse pooch ke bataungi". Then accused Naseem started manhandling with her. During the scuffle, she received an injury with a knife on her neck accidentally. Blood started oozing out from her neck and her husband i.e. accused Naseem went away from there. PW-6 deposed that one of her neighbour (uncle) came to her room and on seeing her condition, he immediately rushed her to a nearby doctor. Her younger brother Ravi also came there and called her father on phone. The doctor advised them to go to hospital, so all of them went to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi, where she got medical treatment and was later on discharged.
22. PW-6 deposed that IO recorded her statement/ complaint vide Ex.PW6/A. IO had also prepared the site plan at her instance and photographs of the incident were also clicked. Thereafter, IO searched for accused Naseem but he was not traceable. PW-6 correctly identified accused in the Court. PW-6 was thereafter, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as she resiled from her previous statement. During her cross- examination, she admitted that on the day of incident, she was residing at House No. 90, Room no. 28, 3/23, Railway Colony, Mandawali, Delhi i.e. house of her parents. She stated that day of incident might be 26.07.2012 and there was no separate kitchen in Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:34 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 11 of 16 the said room. She further admitted that when she refused to go with accused, he quietly went away from there, but after five minutes he returned back and she was lying down on bed at that time. She denied that she did not know that accused was carrying a knife at that time and accused tried to kill her with the said knife and also caused injury on her neck with the said knife. She further stated that she did not remember whether accused left the said knife there or not. PW-6 claimed to have no talking terms with Naseem and that she took divorce from him in August, 2012. She further denied the suggestion that she was deliberately not deposing the entire facts as she had settled the matter with accused.
23. PW-7 is Raju who deposed that he is father of victim Jyoti and about 3-4 years before 2012, Jyoti got married with accused Naseem. On the occasion of Raksha Bandhan in the year 2012, Jyoti and accused Naseem came to his house. He did not remember the date and month, however, the incident took place in the year 2012 when he was at his workplace. His wife was also at her workplace. Her son Ravi made a call to him and informed that accused Naseem had stabbed his daughter Jyoti with a knife. Thereafter, he went to LNJP hospital where he found Jyoti in injured condition. PW-7 stated that victim Jyoti informed him that accused Naseem had stabbed her with a knife. After treatment, he along with Jyoti came back to their house. Police officials met him and made inquiries from him. PW-7 correctly identified accused in the Court.
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:38 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 12 of 16
24. Both PW-6 Jyoti and PW-7 were duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
25. A close scrutiny of aforesaid testimonies show that while PW-7 is merely a hearsay witness, PW-6 categorically deposed that on the relevant date and time of incident she was residing at her parental house and accused had come to meet her and asked to accompany him. When she refused, a scuffle broke between them during which she received injury on her neck with a knife accidentally. Thus, in terms of testimony of victim Jyoti, accused Naseem had not inflicted injuries to Jyoti with the intention or knowledge to cause her death.
26. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Gudda @ Lal Sahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 202/2012 decided on 24.11.2021 discussed the similar issue of mens rea in a criminal offence and relied on several judgments wherein it was held that in order to establish an offence under Section 307 IPC, what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that Section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. The intention is to be gathered from attendant circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The relevant excerpts of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
".... 55. In the case of Mohindar Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 Punj 135, it is observed that the offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 IPC is constituted by the concurrence of mens rea followed by an actus reus. An intent per-se is not an AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:44 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 13 of 16 attempt. It implies purpose and attempt is an actual effort made in execution of the purpose. From the steps directed towards the objective sought, the criminal intent must be logically inferable. The attempt for purposes of Section 307 IPC should stem from a specific intention to commit murder, and this blameworthy condition of mind may be gathered from direct or circumstantial evidence, including the conduct of the accused. Apart from the necessary mens rea, the actus reus must be more than a preliminary preparation. The means must be apparently, though not really suitable, so that they can be adapted to the designed purpose.
56. In the case of Kanbi Nagji Kala vs. State, reported in 1956 Cr.L.J. 1439 (Sau), it is held that when the mens rea, which is essential to the offence of murder, was absent and where the weapons used by the accused were ordinary agricultural implements and did not necessarily indicate a deliberate intention to cause death or fatal injuries, conviction under Section 307 was held not sustainable. In that case four boys took their cattle for grazing; but the cattle strayed into the adjoining field of the accused and were committing mischief. The accused attempted to take them to pound but was obstructed by the boys resulting in a scuffle and some of the boys were seriously injured by sharp cutting weapons. The High Court ruled out the plea of self defence on the part of the accused but at the same time acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC for absence of mens rea, the accused using only sharp cutting agricultural implements used ordinarily by cultivators.
57. In the case of Abdul Wahid vs. State of U.P., reported in Gudda @ Lal Sahab & Ors. vs. State of MP 1980 CrLJ (NOC) 77 (All), it was held as follows:-
"Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of 'attempt to murder'. Under Section 307 IPC the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. To constitute an offence under Section 307 AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 17:49:48 +0530 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 14 of 16 IPC the intention or knowledge must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. The intention is to be gathered from the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body where the injuries are inflicted and no conviction is legally permissible unless the prosecution proves the ingredients of Section 300 IPC of which intention or knowledge play a vital role. ''
58. Intent which is a state of mind can never be precisely proved by direct evidence as a fact: it can only be deduced or inferred from other facts. Some relevant considerations are :(1) the nature of weapon used; (2) the place where injuries were inflicted; (3) the nature of the injury caused; (4) the opportunity available which the accused gets. The Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that Section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all the circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue...."
27. Thus, in order to establish an offence under Section 307 IPC, the intention precedes the actual act attributed to the accused and without 'intention' or 'mens rea' being established there could be no offence of 'attempt to murder'. The intention to commit murder is to be gathered from direct or circumstantial evidence which includes nature of weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive of the crime, severity of the blow etc.. In the present case, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, testimony of victim Jyoti was vital, however, she specifically stated in her testimony that the injury in question was caused to her during a scuffle with accused, accidentally. Considering the testimony of injured Jyoti, manner in which the injury was caused i.e. a scuffle between husband and wife, fact that knife in question was an ordinary kitchen knife and there was no separate kitchen in the room of victim, fact that accused had no clear motive to cause death of victim as he merely wanted to take the victim along with Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date:
+0530 2025.12.15 17:49:53 FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 15 of 16 him and nature of injury received being simple, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had caused injuries in question to the complainant with the intention or knowledge to cause her death, as alleged.
28. In these circumstances, accused Naseem S/o Mr. Umardaraj is acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC, as alleged against him. The accused has furnished bail bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. which stood accepted and shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from today.
29. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2025.12.15
17:49:59
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN)
COURT ON 15.12.2025 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
This judgment contains 16 pages and each paper is signed by me. Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.12.15
17:50:04 +0530
(AKASH JAIN)
ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
FIR No:- 351/2012 State v. Naseem Page No. 16 of 16