Delhi District Court
State vs Jeetu Gupta And Ors on 20 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
SC No. 291/2019
CNR No. DLSH01-004214-2019
FIR No. 69/2013
PS Harsh Vihar
U/S 308/323/324/34 IPC
STATE
VS.
(1) JEETU GUPTA,
S/o Sh. Rajender Gupta,
R/o H.No. 48, E-4,
Nand Nagri, Delhi.
(2) RAJENDER GUPTA,
S/o Sh. Shiv Narayan,
R/o H.No. 124, Krishna Vihar-III,
Sewa Dham, Mandoli Road,
Ghaziabad, UP.
(3) VISHAL GUPTA @ BANTU,
S/o Sh. Rajender Gupta,
R/o Kh. No. 123, Gali No. 2,
in front of Sewa Dham Chowki,
Krishna Vihar, Phase-III,
Loni Ghaziabad, UP.
.... Accused persons
Date of Institution of case 04.07.2019
Date of case reserved for 19.05.2025
Judgment
Judgment Pronounced on 20.05.2025
State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 1 of 39
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20
Decision Accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender
Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu are
acquitted of the offence u/s 308/34
IPC, but convicted u/s 324/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 09.05.2013, DD No. 6A was received and IO reached the GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of Hari Shankar, who was unfit for statement.
Complainant Saroj alleged that her husband was Hari Shankar and they had 3 sons namely Prem Sagar, Akarshit and Annu and one daughter Suvidha and accused persons were residing in the neighbourhood and her neighbour Jeetu used to sit outside the house of their neighbour Saraswati and used to abuse. On 08.05.2013 at about 11 PM, when she came out of her house, Saraswati was standing outside her house and she told Saraswati not to allow Jeetu to sit outside her house, then on hearing this, brother of Jeetu namely Vishal @ Bantu came out of his house and started saying vices to her, then her husband Hari Shankar and sons Prem Sagar and Akarshit also came out. Then, Bantu and his brothers Rahul and Jeetu and father Rajender also came out and Rahul was carrying a knife in his hand, Rajender was carrying the Thapi (used to wash cloths) and Jeetu was having baseball bat and they all started quarreling with them and caused injuries to her and said family members and Rahul had inflicted knife injury to Akarshit and Prem Sagar was caught by Vishal @ Bantu and Jeetu had hit him on his head with baseball bat and State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 2 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:55:09 +0530 Rajender Gupta hit Hari Shankar with said Thapi, which caused injuries and when she went to pacify the matter and intervened, she also sustained some injuries. PCR took them to GTB Hospital.
2. On the complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered vide FIR No. 69/2013 dated 09.05.2013 in PS Harsh Vihar u/s 308/323/324/34 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu u/s 308/323/324/34 IPC and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance of offences were taken against accused persons.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 308/323/324/34 IPC was framed against accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu by Ld. Predecessor on 19.04.2023. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. (330 BNSS) was conducted on 24.04.2025 and accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu had not disputed the following documents:
(i) RC No. 73/21/13 dt. 02.08.2013 prepared by MHC(M), Ex.PA1.
(ii) Acknowledgment receipt having no. FSL-2013/B-6192, dt. 02.08.2013 issued by Director FSL, Ex.PA2.
(iii) Entry bearing no. 944 dt. 09.05.2013 in Register No. 19 regarding the deposit of case property of the present case in State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 3 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:55:16 +0530 Malkhana, Ex.PA3.
In view of above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with:
(a) Ct. Randhir (at Sl. No. 16 in list of witnesses)
(b) MHC(M) PS Harsh Vihar (at Sl. No. 7 in list of witnesses) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses in its favour to prove the case.
6. PW1 Dr. Devendra Kumar, DMS, GTB Hospital deposed that on 09.05.2013, he was working in GTB Hospital as CMO and on that day, Dr. Gaurav Yadav was also working in GTB Hospital as CMO. The MLC bearing no. C-1771/13, Ex.PW1/A of patient Saroj, D/o Sh. Hari Shankar, aged about 42 years, female, was prepared by Dr. Gaurav Yadav, who was also on duty in casualty along with PW1 and it bears the signature of Dr. Gaurav at point X. Dr. Gaurav had already left GTB Hospital and PW1 had identified his signature on the above said MLC as PW1 was also on duty on 09.05.2013 in casualty along with him and he had seen him signing the MLC.
On that day, another patient Akarshit, S/o Sh. Hari Shankar, aged about 17 years, was also examined in casualty vide MLC No. B-1765/13 dt. 09.05.2013, Ex.PW1/B by one Dr. Ajay Kumar Verma (JR), who examined him and prepared the MLC bearing signature of Dr. Ajay Kumar Verma at point D and PW1 had seen him signing the MLC as PW1 was also on duty on that day in the casualty. Dr. Ajay Kumar Verma had already left the GTB Hospital.
State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 4 of 39 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:55:22 +0530
7. PW1 further deposed that on that day, another patient Hari Shankar, aged about 54 years, was also examined in casualty vide MLC No. A-1773/13 dt. 09.05.2013, Ex.PW1/C by one Dr. Irshad (JR), who examined him and prepared MLC, bearing signature of Dr. Irshad at point X. PW1 had seen him signing the MLC as he was also on duty on that day in the casualty and Dr. Irshad had left the GTB Hospital.
On that day, another patient Prem Sagar, aged about 21 years, was also examined in casualty vide MLC No. A-1774/13 dt. 09.05.2013, Ex.PW1/D by one Dr. Irshad (JR), who examined him and prepared the MLC, bearing signature of Dr. Irshad at point X and PW1 had seen him signing the MLC as he was also on duty on that day in the casualty and Dr. Irshad had left the GTB Hospital.
8. PW2 Dr. Rajesh Arora, Assistant Professor, Orthopedics, GTB Hospital deposed that on 09.05.2013, he was working in GTB Hospital as JR, PG Resident, Orthopedics. During that time, Dr. Tarun Vijay was also working as SR in Orthopedics Department. As per the record of MLC No. C-1771/13, Ex.PW1/A of one patient Saroj, D/o Sh. Hari Shankar, Dr. Tarun Vijay had given his opinion on the said MLC. PW2 had identified his signature on the opinion given by him on the above said MLC as he had worked with Dr. Tarun Vijay at that time and he had seen him while signing and writing the various documents and Dr. Tarun Vijay had left the GTB Hospital.
State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 5 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:55:29 +0530
9. PW3 Saroj deposed that she was the resident of H. No. 37 (CN-286), Gali No. 2, Thakur Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Extension, Delhi and in the year 2013, she along with her husband, her sons namely Prem Sagar, Akarshit and Annu and her daughter namely Suvidha were residing at the above mentioned address. Accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta were residing in the adjoining house. One lady namely Saraswati was also residing in front of her house. Accused Jeetu Gupta used to sit on the slap (patri) situated over the street drain outside the house of Saraswati and used to abuse PW3, her daughter and other family members. On 05.08.2013, at about 11:00 PM, she came out of her house and saw that accused Jeetu Gupta was sitting on the slap (patri) situated over the street drain outside the house of Saraswati, who was neighbour and also standing outside her house. PW3 asked her not to allow accused Jeetu Gupta to sit outside her house. Upon hearing this, accused Vishal @ Bantu also came out of his house, "aur usse ulta sidha kehne laga, to shor sun kar uske pati Hari Shankar aur ladke Prem Sagar aur Akarshit bahar aa gaye. Phir uske baad CCL 'R' aur Rajender Gupta bhi ghar se bahar aa gaye".
10. PW3 further deposed that accused Jeetu Gupta was having baseball bat in his hand and accused Rajender Gupta was having thapi in his hand and CCL 'R' was having knife in his hand and then accused Bantu, Jeetu Gupta, Rajender and CCL 'R' had picked up quarrel with them and all with baseball bat, knife and thapi caused beatings to PW3, her husband Hari Shankar and her sons Prem Sagar and Akarshit with intention to State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 6 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:55:34 +0530 kill. CCL 'R' had inflicted knife injury to Akarshit. Accused Vishal @ Bantu had caught hold of Prem Sagar and accused Jeetu Gupta had hit baseball bat on the head of Prem Sagar. Accused Rajender gave beating to her husband Hari Shankar with thapi and PW3 also received injuries. Someone called at 100 number and PCR officials reached there. PCR official and ambulance took them to GTB Hospital where they received treatment. Police official came at the hospital and recorded her statement, Ex.PW3/A. From the hospital, she along with IO went to the spot where IO prepared the site plan at her instance on the next date i.e. 09.05.2013. PW3 had correctly identified one Baseball Bat, Ex.P1, which was used by accused Jeetu Gupta for committing the offence. PW3 also correctly identified one wooden danda with blood stains on it, Ex.P2, which was used by accused persons for committing the offence. PW3 also correctly identified one knife with wooden handle and rusty brown stain blade, Ex.P3, which was used by the CCL 'R'. PW3 admitted in the cross-examination by Ld. Addl PP that the date of incident was of 08.05.2013 and she had stated that date of incident as 05.08.2013 during her examination-in-chief dt. 12.01.2024 inadvertently. PW3 had correctly identified accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu in the court.
11. PW4 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that she was working in Biology Division of FSL Rohini, Delhi since 1999 and she had examined approx 40,000-50,000 exhibits and appeared in different courts as an expert witness. On 02.08.2013, she was State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 7 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:55:39 Date: 2025.05.20 +0530 posted as Senior Scientific Officer (BIO). On that day, 5 sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini in relation to the present case and same was assigned to her for examination. The above said sealed parcels were intact as per the forwarding letter. PW4 opened the parcels and examined the exhibits and prepared her detailed report dt. 27.03.2014, Ex.PW4/A. After examination, she came to the conclusion that "Human blood was found on the exhibits i.e. 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5 and no blood group could be found on the said exhibits.
12. PW5 Retd. SI Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 09.05.2013, he was posted as SI at PS Harsh Vihar and on that day, he was working as duty officer and his working hours were from 12:00 midnight to 08:00 AM and at about 03:55 AM, Ct. Girdhari came at the PS and handed over a rukka, sent by SI Subodh Panwar for registration of FIR. PW5 made endorsement on it vide DD No. 8A (Kaymi) dt. 09.05.2013, Ex.PW5/A. PW5 registered the FIR No. 69/2013, Ex.PW5/B and also registered GD No. 6A dt. 09.05.2013, Ex.PW5/C (OSR) at about 12:45 AM regarding the quarrel between neighbours.
13. PW6 Dr. Gopal Krushna Das, HOD, Ophthalmology, GTB Hospital deposed that he was working as doctor at above said hospital since 1999 and he was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Shivani, SR, GTB Hospital as he had worked with her and had seen her writing and signing in official discharge of duties. Dr. Shivani had left the services of the hospital and her present whereabouts were not available with the record of hospital. PW6 had correctly identified the signature State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 8 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:55:45 +0530 of Dr. Shivani at point B to B1 on MLCs, Ex.PW1/A of injured Saroj and Ex.PW1/C of injured Hari Shankar and he further admitted that as per her handwriting, the nature of injuries was simple in nature on both the MLCs.
14. PW7 Dr. Varun Thareja, SR Surgery, Department of Neurosurgery, GTB Hospital deposed that he was working as doctor at above said hospital since 2024 and he was not acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Satyadeo Pandey, SR, GTB Hospital as he had not worked with him and had not seen him writing and signing in official discharge of duties. Dr. Satyadeo Pandey had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts were not available with the record of hospital. There was no doctor available in the hospital, who was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of above said doctor. PW7 could give opinion regarding the nature of injuries after seeing the relevant record and MLC. PW7 further deposed that the MLCs, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D of injured persons namely Hari Shankar and Prem Sagar and CT Head Report, Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B were shown to him and PW7 stated that after perusal of CT report, the nature of injury of above said injured persons were simple in nature from the neurosurgical point of view.
15. PW8 Dr. Neelima Gupta, HOD, ENT Department, GTB Hospital deposed that she was working as doctor at above said hospital since 2002 and she was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Rahul, SR, GTB Hospital as she had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing in State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 9 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 official discharge of duties. Dr. Rahul had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts were not available with the record of hospital. PW8 had correctly identified the signature of Dr. Rahul from point C to C1 on MLCs, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D of injured persons namely Hari Shankar and Prem Sagar on each MLCs and as per handwriting of Dr. Rahul, the nature of injuries were simple in nature on both the MLCs.
16. PW9 Deepa deposed that she was working in a factory and on 09.05.2013, at about 12:00 midnight (on the intervening night of 08-09.05.2013), she was present at her house i.e. H. No. 22, Gali No. 2, Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Extn, Delhi. PW9 heard noise of quarrel from the street. There was fight/quarrel between accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta, Vishal Gupta @ Bantu and CCL 'RG' on the one side and other side i.e. Hari Shankar, Prem Sagar, Akarshit and Saroj, who were also residents of same street. PW9 made 100 number call from her mobile No. 9650283084. Police official made inquires from her. PW9 had correctly identified accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu in the Court.
17. PW10 Prem Sagar deposed that he was working as graphic designer (photo editing). In the year 2013, he was residing at H. No. 37 (earlier CN 286), Kh. No. 366, Gali No. 2, Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Extn, Delhi along with his parents, his brothers Akarshit and Anu and sister Suvidha and on 08.05.2013, PW10 along with his above said family members were present at their aforesaid house. At about 11:00 pm, his mother Saroj was saying to their neighbour Saraswati, who was residing in front of State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 10 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:55:55 +0530 their house that accused Jeetu Gupta, who was the neighbour of PW10, should not be allowed to sit outside her house, at which brother of accused Jeetu Gupta namely Vishal came outside of his house and started saying wrong language (ulta-sidha) to his mother, then after hearing the noise, his brother Akarshit and father Hari Shankar also came out. Then accused Jeetu Gupta, CCL 'R' and Rajender Gupta also came out. CCL 'R' was having knife in his hand, accused Rajender Gupta was having thapi (used for washing clothes) in his hand and accused Jeetu Gupta was carrying baseball bat in his hand. Accused Vishal Gupta @ Bantu caught hold of PW10 and accused Jeetu Gupta hit on his head with baseball bat and accused Rajender Gupta hit his father with thapi and CCL 'R' caused injuries to his brother Akarshit with knife and his mother also received injuries.
18. PW10 further deposed that PCR van came at the spot and they were taken to GTB Hospital and received treatment. After receiving treatment, PW10 along with his other family members returned to house and PW10 handed over his blood stained wearing vest (baniyan) to the IO and same was sealed by him with the seal of 'SP' and then seized it vide seizure memo, Ex.PW10/A. PW10 had correctly identified the accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu in the Court. PW10 had correctly identified one Baseball Bat, Ex.P1, which was used by accused Jeetu Gupta for committing the offence and also correctly identified one wooden danda, Ex.P2 with blood stains on it, which was used by accused persons for committing the offence. PW10 had correctly identified one knife with State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 11 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:56:00 +0530 wooden handle and rusty brown stain blade, Ex.P3, which was used by CCL 'R' for committing the offence and also correctly identified one blood stained vest (baniyan), Ex.P4, which was worn by PW10 at the time of incident and seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW10/A. PW10 had correctly identified one blood stained half sleeve T-Shirt (grey colour with blue and black strips), having tag of Peter England, Ex.P5, which was worn by his brother Akarshit at the time of incident.
19. PW11 Ct. Girdhari deposed that on 09.05.2013, he was posted as Constable at PS Harsh Vihar. On that day on receiving DD No-6A at about 12:45 AM, he along with SI Subodh Panwar and Ct. Pukhraj reached at GTB Hospital where they met ASI Bhola Ram. SI Subodh collected the MLCs of injured persons namely Hari Shankar, Akarshit, Prem Sagar and Saroj. IO/SI Subodh recorded the statement of Saroj and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to PW11 for the registration of the FIR and PW11 went to PS and got registered the FIR through Duty Officer. PW11 returned to the spot i.e. Gali No. 2, Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Ext., Delhi and handed over the original rukka along with the copy of FIR to SI Subodh. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Saroj. IO seized the wearing clothes i.e., blood stained vest of injured Prem Sagar vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A after wrapping it in a white colour cloth and sealed it with the seal of 'SP' and also seized the wearing clothes i.e., T- Shirt of Akarshit vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/A after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'SP'. IO seized the State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 12 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 2025.05.20 Date:
14:56:04 +0530 Danda, which was lying at the spot vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/B after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'SP'.
20. PW11 further deposed that accused Jeetu Gupta was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo, Ex.PW11/C, his personal search was also conducted vide memo, Ex.PW11/D and his disclosure statement, Ex.PW11/E, was recorded by IO, in which he disclosed that he could get recover the baseball bat, which was used by him for causing injuries to injured Prem Sagar from the street in front of Khasra No. 433, Saboli Ext., Delhi. Then accused Jeetu Gupta took them to the above-said place and got recovered one blood stained baseball bat from the above said street, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/F after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of 'SP'. Thereafter JWO/SI Prateek came there and he conducted the proceedings regarding CCL 'RG', who disclosed that he could get recover the knife, which was used by him for causing injuries to injured Akarshit from the spot and then he took them to the street in front of Khasra No. 433 Saboli Ext., Delhi and then he got recovered one blood stained knife which was lying in the street. Then SI Prateek prepared the sketch of the knife, Ex.PW11/G and seized it vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/H after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'SP'.
21. PW11 had correctly identified one Baseball bat, Ex.P1 which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/F and got recovered by accused Jeetu Gupta and used for committing the offence and also correctly identified one wooden danda with State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 13 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:56:10 +0530 blood stains on it, Ex.P2 which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/B and found at the spot. PW11 had correctly identified one knife with wooden handle and rusty brown stain blade, Ex.P3, which was got recovered by CCL 'RG' and seized it vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/H. PW11 had correctly identified one blood stained vest (baniyan), Ex.P4 and one blood stained half sleeve T-Shirt (grey colour with blue and black strips), having tag of Peter England, Ex.P5. PW11 had correctly identified the accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu in the Court.
22. PW12 Akarshit deposed that in the year 2013, he was residing at the above said address along with his family members i.e. his father Hari Shankar, mother Saroj, his two brothers namely Prem Sagar, Anand Satyarth and one sister namely Suvidha and pursuing his 12th standard. On 08.05.2013, at about 11:00-11:30 PM, he along with his above said family members were present at his above said house and PW12 heard noise of quarrel from outside the house. PW12 came out of his house and saw that accused Jeetu Gupta, Vishal Gupta @ Bantu, Rajender Gupta and CCL 'RG' (son of Rajender Gupta) were fighting with his brother Prem Sagar, father Hari Shankar and his mother Saroj. PW12 tried to intervene in the matter in order to save his family members. CCL 'RG' was carrying a knife in his hand and hit PW12 on his left hand with that knife.
Accused Jeetu Gupta carrying baseball danda (bat) in his hand and hit his father (Hari Shankar) on his head with it. When PW12 tried to save his father, accused Vishal @ Bantu took the knife State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 14 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:56:16 +0530 from CCL 'RG' and hit PW12 on his right arm i.e. above elbow with that knife. Accused Vishal also hit his father on his face with that knife and accused Rajender Gupta was carrying thapi and hit the same on the head of his brother Prem Sagar and also hit his father Hari Shankar with that thapi. His mother Saroj also sustained injuries on her elbow in that fight.
23. PW12 further deposed that PCR Van came at the spot and they were taken to GTB Hospital where they received treatment. After the treatment, PW12 returned at the spot where he handed over the blood stained T-shirt, which was worn by PW12 at the time of incident to the IO, which was seized vide memo, Ex.PW11/A after wrapping it in a white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'SP'. PW12 had correctly identified one Baseball Bat, Ex.P1, which was used by accused Jeetu Gupta for hitting his brother Prem Sagar, one wooden danda with blood stains on it, Ex.P2 which was used by accused Vishal @ Bantu and also correctly identified one knife with wooden handle and rusty brown stain blade, Ex.P3, which was used by CCL 'RG', one blood stained vest (baniyan), Ex.P4, which was worn by his brother Prem Sagar at the time of incident and one blood stained half sleeve T-Shirt (grey colour with blue and black strips), having tag of Peter England, Ex.P5, which was worn by PW12 at the time of incident and seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/A. PW12 had correctly identified the accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu in the Court.
24. PW13 Insp. Subodh Panwar deposed that on the intervening night of 08-09.05.2013, he was posted as SI at PS State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 15 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:56:21 Date: 2025.05.20 +0530 Harsh Vihar and on that day, on receiving DD No. 6A, dt. 09.05.2013 at about 12:45 AM, he along with Ct. Girdhari and Ct. Pukhraj went to GTB Hospital where he met ASI Bhola Ram and collected the MLCs of injured persons i.e. Hari Shankar, Prem Sagar, Akarshit and Saroj. Then, PW13 recorded the statement of injured Saroj, Ex.PW3/A, prepared the rukka, dt. 09.05.2013, Ex.PW13/A and handed over the same to Ct. Girdhari for registration of FIR. PW13 along with Ct. Pukhraj went to spot i.e. Gali No. 2, Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Extension, Delhi. After sometime, Ct. Girdhari returned back and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to PW13. PW13 prepared the site plan, dt. 09.05.2013, Ex.PW13/B at the instance of complainant Saroj. One blood stained wooden danda measuring 2 ft. 9 inches was found at the spot and PW13 seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/B after wrapping in a white cloth and sealing it with the seal of SP. One injured namely Prem Sagar produced one blood stained white colour vest to PW13 as being the wearing cloths and seized it vide seizure memo, Ex.PW10/A after wrapping in a white cloth and sealing it with the seal of SP. One injured namely Akarshit produced one blood stained grey colour T-shirt (half sleeves with blue and black strips) to PW13 as being the wearing cloths and seized it vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/A after wrapping in a white cloth and sealing it with the seal of SP.
25. PW13 further deposed that in the meantime, accused Jeetu Gupta also reached at the spot and arrested by PW13 vide arrest memo, Ex.PW11/C, his personal search was also State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 16 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:56:26 +0530 conducted vide memo, Ex.PW11/D and his disclosure statement, Ex.PW11/E was recorded, in which he disclosed that he could get recover the baseball bat, which was used by accused Jeetu Gupta for causing injuries to Prem Sagar from the spot. Then, accused Jeetu Gupta took him and Ct. Girdhari to the spot and got recovered one wooden baseball bat as above stated by accused Jeetu Gupta from the Street No. 2, Kh. No. 433, Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Extension, Delhi. PW13 seized the recovered baseball bat vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/F after wrapping in a white cloth and sealing it with the seal of SP. On inquiry, one person namely 'RG' was found to be juvenile. PW13 called JWO namely SI Prateek at the spot to conduct the proceedings qua CCL 'RG'. SI Prateek came at the spot and conducted proceedings qua CCL 'RG' and he was apprehended by SI Prateek vide apprehension memo, Ex.PW13/C, his social background report was also prepared by SI Prateek, Ex.PW13/D and his personal search was also conducted vide memo, Ex.PW13/E.
26. PW13 further deposed that CCL 'RG' disclosed that he could get recover the knife, which was used by him for causing injuries to Akarshit from the spot. Then, he took them to the spot and got recovered one blood stained knife having length 24.3 cm, length of blade was 14.7 cm and length of handle was 9.6 cm and width of blade was 2.4 cm, as above stated by him from the Street No. 2, Kh. No. 433, Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Extension, Delhi. PW13 prepared the sketch of knife, Ex.PW11/G and seized it vide memo, Ex.PW11/H after wrapping State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 17 of 39 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:56:31 +0530 Date: 2025.05.20 in a white cloth and sealing it with the seal of SP. PW13 deposited the case property in the malkhana and accused Jeetu Gupta was produced before the Hon'ble Court and sent to JC. On the next day i.e. 10.05.2013, he recorded the statement of ASI Bhola Ram. Then he searched for the other accused persons, but in vain. On 17.05.2013, accused persons Rajender Gupta and Vishal @ Bantu had surrendered before the Hon'ble Court and after obtaining permission from the Court, they were formally arrested vide arrest memos, Ex.PW13/F and Ex.PW13/G. Their personal search was conducted vide memos, Ex.PW13/H and Ex.PW13/I. Then their disclosure statements were recorded vide statements, Ex.PW13/J and Ex.PW13/K respectively.
27. PW13 further deposed that on 02.08.2013, he got deposited the sealed pulandas of aforesaid case property at FSL through Ct. Randhir for examination. On 17.08.2013, he recorded the statements of Ct. Randhir and HC Tejvir [MHC(M)] u/s 161 Cr.PC. PW13 collected the result regarding nature of injuries on the MLCs of injured persons namely Akarshit, Saroj, Hari Shankar and Prem Sagar from the hospital and placed it on record. During investigation, PW13 collected the FSL result from the FSL Rohini and placed it on file. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted it before the Court. PW13 had correctly identified one Baseball Bat, Ex.P1, which was used by accused Jeetu Gupta for committing, one wooden danda with blood stains on it, Ex.P2, which was used by the accused persons for committing the offence, one knife with wooden handle and rusty brown stain State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 18 of 39 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:56:36 +0530 blade, Ex.P3, which was used by the CCL 'R' for committing the offence, one blood stained vest (baniyan), Ex.P4 which was seized by the witness vide seizure memo, Ex.PW10/A and one blood stained half sleeve T-Shirt (grey colour with blue and black strips), having tag of Peter England, Ex.P5. PW13 had correctly identified the accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu in the Court.
28. PW14 Insp. Prateek Saxena deposed that on 09.05.2013, he was posted as SI at PS Harsh Vihar and working as JWO and on that day, at about 12:30 PM, SI Subodh called PW14 at the spot i.e. Kh. No. 433, Gali No. 2, Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Extension, Delhi. PW14 reached there where he met SI Subodh, Ct. Vijay, one CCL 'RG'. SI Subodh handed over CCL 'RG' to PW14. PW14 apprehended CCL 'RG' vide apprehension memo, Ex.PW13/C and information about his apprehension was given to his bhabhi. PW14 prepared his social background report, Ex.PW13/D, his personal search was also conducted vide memo, Ex.PW13/E. Thereafter, CCL 'RG' disclosed that he could get recover the knife, which was used by him for causing injuries to Akarshit from the spot. Then, he took them to the spot and got recovered one blood stained knife having length knife 24.3 cm, length of blade was 14.7 cm and length of handle was 9.6 cm and width of blade was 2.4 cm, as above stated by him from the Street No. 2, Kh. No. 433, Rumal Singh Gate, Saboli Extension, Delhi. SI Subodh prepared the sketch of knife, Ex.PW11/G and seized it vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/H after wrapping in a white cloth and sealing it with State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 19 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:56:41 +0530 the seal of SP.
29. PW14 had correctly identified one knife with wooden handle and rusty brown stain blade, Ex.P3, which was used by the CCL 'RG' for committing the offence.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
30. Statements of accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC (351 BNSS) and they denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and cross case was already registered and complainant in this case were aggressors and they assaulted accused for which another competent court has tried the matter against them. In order to escape liability, they were falsely implicated by the police officials without any fault on their part and they are innocent and prayed for acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED PERSONS
31. Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant and they have no role in the commission of crime and they had not caused any injury to the complainant or his family members and nothing has been recovered from their possession to connect them with the crime and the danda, baseball bat and knife are planted by the police in connivance with the complainant. The injury of the victims is opined to be simple in nature, which itself is an State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 20 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:56:46 +0530 indication that there was no pre-meditation in the quarrel between the accused and the complainant and the complainant party was the aggressor and accused persons only acted in self- defence in which certain minor injuries were suffered by the complainant side and there was no intention to cause injury, rather it was the accused, who suffered injury, which was not brought on record by the prosecution. There is inconsistency and contradiction in the testimonies of the complainant and her other family members and PW3 had stated that she had tried to pacify the matter between the accused and complainant in which she sustained injury, which shows that both the parties were scuffling with each other and there was no intention to cause injury to PW3. It is also submitted that no offence u/s 308 IPC is made out as there was no intention to commit culpable homicide by accused persons and nature of injury was not possible with the alleged weapons and as per criminal jurisprudence the said alleged weapons could not have caused the injuries allegedly suffered by the victims and the injuries mentioned in the MLC are self-inflicted. The two persons from complainant side i.e. Hari Shankar and Prem Sagar have already been convicted in cross case. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons have to be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
32. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as accused persons have been correctly identified by the PW3 Saroj, PW9 Deepa, PW10 Prem Sagar, PW12 Akarshit, State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 21 of 39 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:56:52 +0530 Date: 2025.05.20 who are the eye-witnesses and sustained injuries, which were caused by accused with danda, baseball bat and knife, which are deadly weapons. The knife was used by CCL 'R' and all these weapons have been recovered during investigation i.e. baseball bat was recovered at the instance of accused Jeetu Gupta, knife was recovered at the instance of CCL 'R' and one bloodstained danda was also recovered and police had seized the bloodstained cloths i.e. vest of Prem Sagar, T-shirt of Akarshit. Injuries were also caused to these victims by accused and the doctor has opined the injury as simple in nature, but it was inflicted by the accused persons on the vital parts of the body i.e. face, hand and head, which is reflected in their respective MLCs proved on record and it proved that accused persons had intentionally caused injury to the victims, which can also be seen from the respective testimonies of the prosecution witnesses especially PW3, PW9, PW10 and PW12 and in such cases, injury implies the aggravated form of section 308 IPC. The complainant/injured and other victims are consistent in their statements and testimonies and nothing has come in their cross-examination to doubt their veracity, which is corroborated by medical evidence.
It is also submitted that conviction can be based on the testimony of sole public witness, if it is reliable and trustworthy and the evidence of PW3, PW9, PW10 and PW12 are credible, which were not shaken in their cross-examination and they had correctly identified the accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu, who had caused injuries to the said victims with the said weapons and cross case State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 22 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:56:58 Date: 2025.05.20 +0530 can't be taken into consideration in this case and all accused acted in furtherance of their common intention and it is not proved that complainant side was the aggressor.
33. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
34. The charge against the accused persons is u/s 308/323/324/34 IPC.
Section 308 IPC. 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."
Section 319 IPC Hurt.- Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
Section 324 IPC. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.- "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 34 IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:- When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 23 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:57:06 Date: 2025.05.20 +0530 that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
35. The material witnesses of the prosecution are PW3 Saroj, PW9 Deepa and PW10 Prem Sagar and PW12 Akarshit, who are also eye witnesses.
36. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of PW3 Saroj, who alleged that she along with her husband Hari Shankar, 3 sons namely Prem Sagar, Akarshit, Annu and one daughter Suvidha were residing in the neighbourhood of accused persons. Her neighbour accused Jeetu used to sit outside the house of her neighbour Saraswati and used to abuse PW3. On 08.05.2013 at about 11 PM, when she came out of her house, Saraswati was standing outside her house and she told Saraswati not to allow Jeetu to sit outside her house, then on hearing this, brother of Jeetu namely Vishal @ Bantu came out of his house and started saying vices to her, then her husband Hari Shankar and sons Prem Sagar and Akarshit also came out. Then, Bantu and his brothers CCL 'R' and Jeetu and father Rajender also came out and CCL 'R' was carrying a knife in his hand, Rajender was carrying the Thapi (used to wash cloths) and Jeetu was having baseball bat and they all started quarreling with them and caused injuries to her and said family members and CCL 'R' had inflicted knife injury to Akarshit and Prem Sagar was caught by Vishal @ Bantu and Jeetu had hit him on his head with baseball bat and Rajender Gupta hit Hari Shankar with said Thapi, which caused injuries and when she went to pacify the matter and intervened, she also sustained some injuries.
State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 24 of 39 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:57:12 Date: 2025.05.20 +0530 INJURED/EYE WITNESES
37. Complainant Saroj was examined as PW3, who proved her said complaint, Ex. PW3/A and deposed that accused Jeetu Gupta used to sit on the slap (patri) outside the house of Saraswati and used to abuse PW3, her daughter and other family members and on 05.08.2013 at 11 PM, when she came out of her house, she saw accused Jeetu Gupta sitting on the slap (patri) and she asked Saraswati not to allow Jeetu to sit there and then, all the accused persons and their family members caused injury to them. The motive for the crime is that accused Jeetu Gupta used to abuse PW3 and she told said Saraswati not to allow Jeetu Gupta to sit there and the house of PW3 was opposite to the house of accused persons, which was deposed by her. The said Saraswati could not be examined, but other PWs have supported the version of PW3.
38. PW3 in her cross-examination by Ld. APP clarified that she had inadvertently stated the date of offence as 05.08.2013 and actually it was 08.05.2013 and reiterated the same in her cross-examination by accused, so there is no doubt that incident had happened on 08.05.2013 and minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the examination of witnesses particularly in such cases where witness has deposed after 12 years of occurrence.
39. PW3 has categorically deposed that CCL 'R' had hit her son Akarshit with knife, accused Vishal @ Bantu caught hold of her son Prem Sagar and Jeetu Gupta had hit him with baseball bat on his head and accused Rajendra gave beating to her State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 25 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:57:24 +0530 husband Hari Shankar with thapi due to which they received injuries. Said Hari Shankar had expired during trial and could not be examined. PW3 correctly identified the baseball bat, Ex.P1 used by accused Jeetu, wooden danda, Ex.P2 used by accused persons and knife, Ex.P3 used by CCL 'R'.
40. In her cross-examination, PW3 admitted that the cross FIR was registered against her and her family members and stated that incident had occurred as accused Jeetu Gupta used to abuse them and she also stated that she received injury on the left side of her forehead near just above eyebrow, which is corroborated by her MLC, Ex.PW1/A. Though she admitted that she received injury when she tried to intervene between her family members and accused persons, but it does not justify causing of injury to her by accused persons.
41. PW9 Deepa has also deposed that on 08.05.2013, she witnessed the quarrel between the accused persons and the victims of the present case and she made 100 number call, but she had not stated anything as to who had caused injury to whom and how and admitted in her cross-examination that she had not seen anything in the said quarrel, rather she had called police only hearing the noises.
42. PW10 Prem Sagar deposed that on 08.05.2013 at 11 PM, her mother Saroj (PW3) had told Saraswati not to allow Jeetu Gupta to sit in front of her house and accused Vishal came out and his parents had also came out and CCL 'R', who was having knife in his hand caused injury to his brother Akarshit with knife and accused Vishal @ Bantu caught hold of PW10 and State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 26 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:57:30 +0530 accused Jeetu had hit him with baseball and accused Rajender Gupta hit his father with thapi due to which they suffered injuries.
43. IO seized his bloodstained vest vide, Ex.PW10/A and she correctly identified baseball bat, Ex.P1 and wooden danda, Ex.P2, knife, Ex.P3, used in crime, his bloodstained vest, Ex.P4 and bloodstained half T-shirt, worn by his brother Akarshit at the time of incident, Ex.P5. In his cross-examination, PW10 stated that he received injury on his face/nose and denied all the suggestions put to him and that present false case was registered as a counterblast to cross case in FIR No. 68/2013 and admitted that he was involved in one similar case, but that does not destroy his veracity as a witness.
44. PW12 Akarshit has also deposed that on 08.05.2013 at 11-11.30 PM, he saw that all three accused persons along with CCL 'RG' were fighting with his brother Prem Sagar, father Hari Shankar and mother Saroj and CCL 'RG' hit him with knife on his left hand and accused Jeetu Gupta hit on the head of his father Hari Shankar with baseball danda and Vishal @ Bantu also hit him on his right arm with knife and also hit his father on his face with knife and accused Rajender Gupta hit his brother Prem Sagar and his father Hari Shankar with thapi.
The deposition of PW12 that accused Rajender had hit Prem Sagar with thapi and Vishal had hit Hari Shankar and PW12 with knife were not deposed by PW3 and PW10. Further, PW12 has deposed that accused Jeetu had hit his father Hari Shankar with baseball bat, which is contradictory to the State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 27 of 39 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:57:36 +0530 Date: 2025.05.20 testimony of PW3 and PW10, who have deposed that accused Jeetu had hit Prem Sagar with baseball bat.
Thus, there is some variation, contradiction and improvement in the version of PW12 when compared to the version of PW3 and PW10, who were also victims and eye- witnesses, but on the other aspects except above, all the PWs i.e. PW3, PW10 and PW12 are consistent and their versions that accused persons had caused injury to them on the alleged date, place and time with baseball bat, knife, danda and thapi, which are dangerous weapons and baseball bat, wooden danda and knife, Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 have been recovered at the instance of accused persons/CCL. Nothing has come in the cross- examination of these witnesses to doubt their veracity as a witness. Such minor variation does not go to the root of the case as all has consistently stated that all accused persons have caused injuries to these witnesses with said weapons.
45. PW3 is consistent in her statement since her initial complaint Ex.PW3/A till her deposition in the court and PW10 and PW12 have corroborated the version of PW3 qua the offence being committed by accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu and accused persons were correctly identified by them.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
46. PW1 Dr. Davendra Kumar has deposed on behalf of Dr. Gaurav Yadav, who prepared MLC, Ex.PW1/A of PW3 Saroj, wherein there was one lacerated wound of size 1.5x.05 cm over left eyebrow.
State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 28 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20
14:57:44 +0530
PW1 also appeared on behalf of Dr. Ajay Kumar Verma, who examined PW12 Akarshit and prepared MLC, Ex.PW1/B and as per the same, there were 1 fresh incised wound of size 7x3 cm on arm and 2 fresh incised wounds of size 2x1 cm were found on his left hand.
PW1 also appeared on behalf of Dr. Irshad, who examined and prepared MLC of injured Hari Shankar, Ex.PW1/C and as per which, there was lacerated wound over left eyebrow of 3x2 cm and one on left cheek of 4x1 cm.
PW1 also appeared on behalf of Dr. Irshad, who also prepared the MLC of injured Prem Sagar, Ex.PW1/D, in which there was lacerated wound over left parietal of 6x2 cm.
47. PW2 Dr. Rajesh Arora appeared on behalf of Dr. Tarun Vijay and proved the opinion of Dr. Tarun on the MLC of PW3 Saroj, Ex.PW1/A that nature of injury was simple in nature. PW4 Ms. Manisha Upadhyay has proved the FSL Report, dt. 27.03.2024, Ex.PW4/A wherein she opined that human blood was found on Exhibits 1 (baseball bat), 2 (wooden danda), 3 (baniyan with dirty brownish stains), 4 (one dirty brown T-shirt) and 5 (metalic knife having wooden handle with rusty brown stains).
48. PW6 Dr. Gopal Krishna Das appeared on behalf of Dr. Shivani and proved the MLC of injured PW3 Saroj and Hari Shankar, Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/C. In the said MLC, Dr. Shivani had opined that nature of injury was simple in nature.
49. PW7 Dr. Varun Thareja appeared on behalf of Dr. Satyadev Pandey and proved the opinion given by him, in the State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 29 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:57:56 +0530 MLCs of Hari Shankar and Prem Sagar, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D and also their CT Head Reports, Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B and that nature of injury was simple in nature of the said injured persons.
50. PW8 Dr. Neelima Gupta appeared on behalf of Dr. Rahul, who proved the opinion of Dr. Rahul on the MLCs, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D of Hari Shankar and Prem Sagar that nature of injury was simple in nature.
From the said medical evidence, it is proved that there were lacerated and incised wounds caused to the injured PW3 Saroj, PW10 Prem Sagar, PW12 Akarshit and Hari Shankar, but all the injuries were opined to be simple in nature and none of the said witnesses was cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity and the said MLCs and opinions thereof stand proved. Thus, the medical evidence also corroborates the versions of PW3 Saroj, PW10 Prem Sagar and PW12 Akarshit that the accused persons had caused injury to them and deceased Hari Shankar with weapons i.e. baseball bat, wooden danda (thapi) and knife and as per Ex.PW4/A, the human blood was found on these weapons, which further corroborates the versions of PW3 Saroj, PW10 Prem Sagar and PW12 Akarshit.
POLICE WITNESSES
51. PW5 SI Mahesh Kumar proved the endorsement over the rukka, Ex.PW5/A and the registration of FIR, Ex.PW5/B and also registered a GD No. 6A dated 09.05.2013, Ex.PW5/C, wherein it is recorded that two neighbours were quarreling and it was only an initial statement, but PW5 was not cross-examined State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 30 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:58:04 +0530 by accused persons despite opportunity.
52. PW11 Ct. Girdhari corroborated that statement of complainant was recorded by PW13 IO/SI Subodh Panwar and that FIR was also registered on the basis of rukka prepared by IO and he handed over the rukka to PW13 and then, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant, which is further corroborated by PW13 IO, who proved the rukka, Ex.PW13/A and site plan, Ex.PW13/B, which shows the place of occurrence near the house of complainant and accused and thus, further corroborates the version of public witnesses including complainant.
53. PW11 proved the seizure memo of bloodstains of vest of Prem Sagar, Ex.PW10/A and also the wearing T-shirt of Akarshit vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/A, which was sealed by the IO and IO PW13 also seized the danda lying at the spot vide memo, Ex.PW11/B and that accused Jeetu Gupta was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.PW11/D and on his disclosure, Ex.PW11/E that he could get recover the baseball bat used by him for causing injuries to injured Prem Sagar, he got recovered the bloodstains baseball bat from the street in front of Khasra No. 433, Saboli Extension, Delhi by taking police there, which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW11/E by the IO and sealed. PW13 IO has also corroborated these facts in his deposition. CCL 'RG' got disclosed that he could get recover the knife and he had got the bloodstains knife recovered from the street in front of Khasra No. 433, Saboli Extension, Delhi by taking police there and its sketch was prepared by SI Prateek, who seized the same vide seizure State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 31 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:58:12 +0530 memo, Ex.PW11/H and sealed it. This version is deposed by PW11 and corroborated by PW13 IO and PW14 Inspector Prateek Saxena.
54. PW11 and PW13 correctly identified the said baseball bat, Ex.P1, wooden danda, Ex.P2, knife, Ex.P3, said vest (baniyan), Ex.P4 and T-shirt, Ex.P5. In the cross-examination, PW11 denied that recovery of the said articles was done in the PS or that recovery was not done prior to the FIR and stated that seizure memos were prepared after the FIR. Nothing has come in the cross-examination to doubt his veracity as a witness. No suggestion has been given that police had recorded the false disclosure of accused or the injured had not produced their bloodstains cloths i.e. vest and T-shirt or that FIR was got wrongly registered. Further, PW13 had proved the arrest of accused Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta after they surrendered before the Court and he recorded their disclosure statements, Ex.PW13/J and Ex.PW13/K and he collected the nature of injuries on the MLCs of injured Akarshit, Saroj, Hari Shankar and Prem Sagar from the hospital.
55. In his cross-examination, PW13 IO reiterated that the statement of Saroj and other witnesses were recorded, but he could not find any CCTV camera installed or nearby the spot and cross-case was registered and he did not make any public person a witness at the time of recovery of baseball bat and reiterated that site plan, Ex.PW13/B was prepared at the instance of complainant Saroj. He did not ask doctor that if, injuries to Akarshit were caused by sharp weapon or as to how lacerated State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 32 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:58:18 Date: 2025.05.20 +0530 wound to PW Saroj was caused or if, it was for self-inflicted or by scuffling in case of PW Saroj and Hari Shankar. He also did not inquire, if lacerated wound of Prem Sagar was due to minor scuffle or self-inflicted injury and he did not show the doctors, the weapons of offence as aforesaid, if they could cause injury, but no suggestion is given to the doctors or PW13 that injuries caused to the injured persons were self-inflicted, thus, the cross- examination of PW13 on this aspect will not enure any benefit to the accused persons.
56. PW14 proved the apprehension of CCL 'R' and recovery of knife used by him and correctly identified the knife, Ex.P3 and nothing has come in his cross-examination in favour of accused. All the public witnesses i.e. injured/victims and the police witnesses have correctly identified all the accused persons and the recovery of weapons, used in the crime at their instance was proved and there was lacerated and incised wounds, which could be caused by the said weapons.
57. In Nathhi Lal Vs. State of UP 1990 (Supp.) SCC 145, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'in cross cases the court while deciding each of the cases, can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in cross case cannot be looked into nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case and each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence, which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case and both the judgments must be pronounced by the same judge one after the other.' There was a cross-case in the present matter, but that has already been decided by Ld. ASJ, FTC/e-Court, Shahdara, State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 33 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:58:24 +0530 Karkardooma, Delhi and vide order on sentence dated 05.12.2018, the injured in this case i.e. Hari Shankar and Prem Sagar were convicted. The said Court might have decided the matter under the ignorance that there was cross case and may be cross-case was not apprised to the said Court and Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon the judgment of that case, but in view of Natha Lal (Supra) the same cannot be relied upon to decide the present matter, which is to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in the present case.
58. In order to constitute an offence u/s 308 IPC, it is to be proved that the said act was committed by the accused with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the offence was committed under such circumstances that if the accused, by that act, had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide. The intention or knowledge on the part of the accused, is to be deducted from the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of the body where such injuries were suffered.
59. From the MLCs of the victims i.e. PW3, PW10 and PW12 and deceased Hari Shankar, Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C, the nature of injury is simple in nature. There were only incised wounds at the hands and arm of injured Akarshit and there was single lacerated wound of size 1.5x0.5 cm to PW3 Saroj, who admitted that she sustained injury when she intervened and tried to pacify the matter when her family members and accused were quarreling and there were two State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 34 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:58:30 +0530 lacerated wounds of size 4x1 cm and 3x2 cm to injured Hari Shankar, who has expired now and it was near eyebrow and cheek and also there is a single lacerated wound over parietal region of size 6x2 cm to Prem Sagar and multiple injuries were not caused to them with intention to kill or cause the culpable homicide.
60. In Ved Kumari and Anr. Vs. State & Anr, 96 (2002) DLT 820, it has been held that in order to constitute offence u/s 308 IPC, it must be proved:-
i) That the accused had committed an act,
ii) That the said act was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and,
iii) That the offence was committed under such circumstances, the accused by that act had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide.
61. The intention has to be gathered from the acts committed by the accused and the awareness of the consequences as it is a question of facts. Similar view has been taken in Sunder Vs. State, Manu/DE/0331/2010 and the conviction from section 308 IPC was altered to section 323 IPC.
62. In Raju @ Rajpal and Ors. Vs. State of Delhi, 2014 (3) JCC 1894, Hon'ble Delhi High Court altered the conviction from section 308 IPC to section 323 IPC by holding that nature of injuries were simple and they were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Delhi in Criminal Appeal NO. 17/2011 dt. 20.02.2015, the conviction was altered from section State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 35 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.05.20 14:58:38 +0530 308 IPC to section 323 IPC considering the simple injuries as opined by the doctor.
63. Recently, in State Vs. Kamlesh Bahadur in Criminal LP No. 515/2019 decided on 12.09.2023, The Hon'ble High Court considered the injuries in the MLC of the complainant i.e.
(i) CLW 8x2x.5 cms over central parieto occipital region.
(ii) Swelling and tenderness right forearm and wrist.
(iii) Abrasion 1x1 cm over right wrist.
The Hon'ble High Court held that the Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 308 IPC as he hit complainant with sariya and again given a blow with a wooden leg of cot on the vital part of the body i.e. head, but there was no premeditation and incident took place on the spur of the moment and injuries were simple in nature and convicted the accused u/s 323 IPC and not u/s 308 IPC.
64. In this case, there was no previous enmity or dispute between the appellants and the complainant, which could be proved, rather it was admitted by PW3 that there was no quarrel or previous enmity between them and accused persons prior to the present incident and there was no premeditation and incident took place on the spur of the moment when PW3 told Saraswati not to allow accused Jeetu Gupta to sit there and said Saraswati could not be examined as a witness and injury was suffered by both the sides and cross FIRs were registered against each other. The quarrel had taken place on a trivial issue of non allowing of accused Jeetu Gupta to sit outside the house of Saraswati and that he had abused PW3. The nature of injuries suffered by the complainant/victims was opined to be simple caused by blunt State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 36 of 39 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.20 14:58:43 +0530 object. Apparently, the injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause their death and since the injury is simple, it shows that the alleged weapon were not used with great force on the vital parts of the body, which could have caused the death of injured persons and there was no intention to cause injury to PW3.
65. The nature of injury in the present case to the victim Prem Sagar is single injury i.e. lacerated wound 6x2 cm on the head area caused by baseball bat and in the case of Kamlesh Bahadur (supra), the nature of injury was a bit wide and still accused was not convicted u/s 308 IPC. It is doubtful from the case of prosecution that PW3, PW10, PW12 and deceased Hari Shankar were hit with baseball bat, knife and thapi by accused persons with intention or knowledge that by that act, they would commit culpable homicide as the nature of injury is simple in nature which could never have caused death/culpable homicide of the injured.
The ingredients of section 308 IPC are not proved by the prosecution against accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu beyond reasonable doubt.
66. From MLCs of injured persons, they received injuries and above said weapons were used to cause them, as discussed in the preceding paras, it is apparent that accused persons had caused beatings to said injured, which are proved from the ocular testimonies of injured PW3, PW10 and PW12 and corroborated by medical evidence and police witnesses, which cannot be brushed aside totally as the evidence of the injured is on the State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 37 of 39 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:58:48 Date: 2025.05.20 +0530 higher pedestal, if accused fails to create a doubt or the version of eye-witness/injured is totally negated by other evidence.
67. All the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention while causing injury to the said injured persons, which was gathered at the spot. The present case against accused is proved by the prosecution u/s 324/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
68. In the present case, all the accused persons were charged u/s 308/34 IPC, but the same could not be proved rather section 324/34 IPC was proved against them.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
69. In their statements, u/s 313 Cr.PC (351 BNSS), accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu had denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and cross case was already registered and complainant in this case were aggressors and they assaulted accused for which another competent court has tried the matter against them. In order to escape liability, they were falsely implicated by the police officials without any fault on their part.
The accused persons have not taken the defence that the complainant were the aggressors during the evidence as no suggestion was put to any either public witness/injured or the police witnesses and simply taking this defence at the time of SA will not change the nature of crime or prove that complainant side was the aggressor and mere fact that two persons of complainant side have been convicted, will not give any benefit State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 38 of 39 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:58:53 +0530 Date: 2025.05.20 to the accused in the light of Natha Lal (Supra). The accused has not brought any defence witness nor cross-examined any doctors, who proved the MLCs.
70. There is no proper explanation of false implication of accused persons given by them in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC and that their defence that police had implicated them in false case is neither probable nor plausible in the absence of specific evidence as their presence at the scene of crime and quarrel and fight with complainant/injured person is not deemed.
CONCLUSION
71. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu u/s 308/34 IPC, but proved the offence against them u/s 324/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
72. Consequently, the accused Jeetu Gupta, Rajender Gupta and Vishal Gupta @ Bantu are acquitted of the offence u/s 308/34 IPC, but convicted u/s 324/34 IPC.
Bail bonds cancelled. Surety stands discharged. The accused persons shall be heard separately on sentence. KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:58:58 +0530 Date: 2025.05.20 PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (KUMAR RAJAT) ON THIS DAY 20th OF MAY 2025 ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi/20.05.2025 State Vs Jeetu Gupta & Others FIR No. 69/2013 PS Harsh Vihar Page 39 of 39