Delhi District Court
Kiran Mahajanw/O Sh. Manoj Kumar vs Sunil Kumars/O Late Sh. Chaman Lal on 25 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 146/2022
Kiran Mahajan
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar,
R/o H. No. 39, Old Anarkali,
Near Chaudhary Dairy,
Jagatpuri, Delhi
...........Appellant
Vs.
1. Sunil Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Chaman Lal
2. Dalip Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Chaman Lal
Both R/o at: A-8, New Krishna Nagar,
Delhi.
3. State
..........Respondents
SUBHASH
KUMAR
MISHRA Date of institution : 03.09.2022
Digitally signed
Judgment reserved on : 26.11.2025
by SUBHASH Judgment pronounced on : 26.11.2025
KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2025.11.26
17:00:59 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court dated 26.04.2022, whereby the respondent no.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused persons') were acquitted.
Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.1 of 9
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, alleged facts are that on 29.12.2012 at about 05.00 pm, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') visited the house of the accused persons to make them understand because accused Dalip had abused and beaten up the son of the complainant. When the complainant knocked at the door of the house of the accused persons, the accused persons opened the door and accused Dalip caught her and accused Sunil slapped her on her face and hit on her breast. Thereafter, both of them fell her down and started beating her. When the sons of the complainant tried to rescue her, they were also beaten up by the accused persons. Accused Sunil hit a piece of brick on the head of Kunal i.e. son of the complainant, due to which, he started bleeding from his head. After the incident, the accused persons fled away from the spot.
SUBHASH 3. An FIR was lodged regarding the incident and after the KUMAR MISHRA conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Digitally signed accused persons. Charge under Section 323/341/354/34 IPC was by SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2025.11.26 framed against the accused persons.
17:01:03 +0530
4. In support of his case, prosecution examined the complainant as PW1. Her sons namely Himanshu Mahajan and Kunal Mahajan were also examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively. Apart from them, seven other witnesses were also examined.
5. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.2 of 9 statement of the accused persons were recorded.
6. In support of their defence, accused persons examined eight witnesses.
7. After hearing the arguments, Ld. Trial Court acquitted the accused persons, vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred.
8. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had duly supported the case of prosecution and Ld. Trial Court wrongly concluded that she tried to hide certain facts from the court only because she could not depose certain facts in her examination in chief, which were later testified by her in her cross examination.
He also argued that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the MLCs of the complainant and her sons, which corroborates the SUBHASH case of the prosecution.
KUMAR MISHRA He further argued that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly opined Digitally signed that no such incident had happened because in the cross by SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2025.11.26 examination of PW3, suggestion was given on behalf of the 17:01:08 +0530 accused persons that he, his brother and his mother were the real aggressors, which means that the incident had indeed happened.
He also argued that suggestion was also given to PW1 that the fight had taken place at 06.00 pm, which was denied by the witness, which again shows that the incident had indeed Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.3 of 9 happened.
It was argued by him that Ld. Trial Court wrongly relied on the stand of the accused persons that the injuries suffered by the victims were not caused by them and it was result of a dog bite or some other incident.
In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Samar Singh Puri Vs. NCT of Delhi, Crl. Rev. Petition No. 129/2009, decided on 09.05.2011.
9. Per contra, counsel for the accused persons argued that in the instant case, accused persons and the complainant are relatives and the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case due to a property dispute between them.
He argued that as per the medical report, the injured Kunal Mahajan, had suffered a bite injury on his arm but it was not disclosed either by him or by the complainant and was not SUBHASH KUMAR explained as to how he suffered the said injury. MISHRA He also argued that the testimonies of the witnesses suffer Digitally signed by SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA from several contradictions and therefore, Ld. Trial Court has Date: 2025.11.26 17:01:12 +0530 rightly acquitted the accused persons.
10. I have heard the arguments and have also gone through the trial court record including the written arguments and the judgment relied on.
11. In the instant case, the complainant has been examined as Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.4 of 9 PW1, however, in her examination in chief, she did not depose that the accused persons had hit on her breast during the fight. She stated this fact while being cross examined by Additional Public Prosecutor. She stated that mistakenly she could not disclose this fact in her examination in chief.
If the modesty of a women is outraged, it leaves a scar on her psyche and therefore, it cannot be expected from a women that while testifying regarding such offence, she would forget to depose that the offender hit on her breast during the incident. Therefore, her statement that she was hit on her breast during the fight is surrounded by the cloud of doubts.
This doubt is further aggravated by the fact that none of her sons namely Himanshu Mahajan and Kunal Mahajan, who were examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively, deposed SUBHASH KUMAR anything in this regard. Therefore, Ld. Trial Court has rightly MISHRA observed in the impugned judgment as under:-
Digitally signedby SUBHASH "I. Prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2025.11.26 17:01:16 +0530 354/341/34 IPC.
The prosecution has not brought forth any eye witnesses for the offence punishable u/s 354/341/34 IPC as neither of the sons of the complainant have stated that they had witnessed the complainant being restrained by accused persons and being beaten on the chest by the accused Sunil. The complainant/PW1 herself has stated the same only after she was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State, after seeking due permission. Now, merely because a witnesses is cross examined, does not mean that the witness has turned hostile but it does mean that the witness may be trying to hide certain facts from the court and is not being completely truthful. This fact stands compounded when seen in Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.5 of 9 juxtaposition with the testimonies of the sons of the complainant, who allegedly reached the place of incident only minutes after the complainant, but had not witnessed any such act being committed by accused persons. Now, the only evidence which the prosecution was able to adduce in this respect is the statement of the complainant herself. It appears to be rather suspicious that the complainant forgot to tell the said details pertaining to the offence in question to the Court since the same is a serious allegation against accused Sunil. The fact that the same might have skipped the mind of the complainant makes the occurrence of incident suspect."
12. Further, in the MLC of PW3/Kunal Mahajan i.e. Ex.PW4/C, it is mentioned that a bite mark was also present on SUBHASH his left arm. However, in his testimony, he did not state KUMAR anywhere that during the incident, anyone had bitten on his arm. MISHRA Digitally signed This fact was deposed by PW4/Dr. Ravi, when he was examined.
by SUBHASHKUMAR MISHRA He told that PW3/Kunal informed him during the medical Date: 2025.11.26 17:01:20 +0530 examination that it was a human bite mark.
13. PW3/Kunal concealed the fact that he had suffered a bite injury on his left arm during the incident. Allegedly, he had been beaten up by the accused persons. However, he did not depose that any of the accused persons had bitten him on his left arm.
Generally, a person bites on the body of an aggressor, if he becomes helpless and is left with no other option to rescue himself. Presence of such injury on the arm of PW3/Kunal raises Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.6 of 9 doubt if he had attacked any of the accused persons or someone else and in order to rescue himself, either any of the accused persons or someone else had bitten on his arm.
This fact shows that the witness did not state the true fact in his testimony and tried to conceal such material fact from the court during his examination, which aggravates the doubt on the case of prosecution.
14. The apprehension of PW3/Kunal being an aggressor is further bolstered by the fact that one Soren had informed him about the alleged incident as stated by him in his cross examination. PW3 also said that said Soren had taken him and his mother to the hospital on his bike.
15. It means that the said Soren was present on the spot of the incident, however, none of the PWs testified about the presence of said Soren on the spot. Presence of Soren on the spot is also SUBHASH established by the fact that PW3 denied the suggestion that his KUMAR friend Soren was not present on the spot at the time of incident, MISHRA which was given to him during his cross examination.
Digitally signedby SUBHASH It insinuates that said Soren was present on the spot and KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2025.11.26 17:01:24 +0530 complainant along with her sons and Soren had gone to the house of accused persons as an aggressor and a fight ensued. In order to save themselves, any of the accused persons might have bitten on the left arm of PW3/Kunal.
This apprehension is bolstered by the fact that none of the witnesses either mentioned the presence of the Soren on the spot Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.7 of 9 or about the bite mark present on the left arm of PW3/Kunal.
16. Admittedly, as per complaint/Ex.PW1/A, a civil dispute regarding the property was going on between the accused persons and the family of the complainant and therefore, relation between them was strained. Therefore, the likelihood of the false implication of the accused persons in this case cannot be ruled out.
17. In Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2024 SC 1805, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in appeal, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another SUBHASH view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must KUMAR MISHRA be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such Digitally signed by SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal.
Date: 2025.11.26 17:01:29 +053018. In the instant case, there are several lacunae in the case of prosecution and due to the said reason, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. On the basis of such Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.8 of 9 evidence, the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with because after reappreciating the evidence, it does not appear that such evidence could established the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.
19. Having discussed as above, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal stands dismissed.
SUBHASH (Subhash Kumar Mishra)
KUMAR Additional Sessions Judge-03,
MISHRA
East, KKD Courts, Delhi
Digitally signed by
SUBHASH KUMAR 26.11.2025
MISHRA
Date: 2025.11.26
17:01:35 +0530
Kiran Mahajan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page no.9 of 9