Delhi District Court
State vs Bittoo Pal on 8 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. HIMANSHI TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-03, TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 301/2017 Unique Case ID no. 12553/2017 Title State Vs. Bittoo Pal Name of Complainant Mr. Aman Name of Accused Smt. Bittoo Pal W/o Shiv Kumar Pal R/o Quarter NO. 120 Roshanara Club Staff Quarters, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. Date of institution of challan 18.09.2018 Date of arguments 30.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.08.2025 Offence complained of U/s 325/323/341 IPC Offene charged with U/s 325/341 IPC Plea of the accused Not Guilty Final order Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
01. The facts of the case of the prosecution in brief are that on 10.12.2017 during emergency duty, ASI Pratap Singh received a DD no. 21A regarding quarrel at Roshnara Club, near railway line, Delhi. Upon receipt of said DD, he alongwith Ct Parul reached to State Vs. Bittoo Pal Digitally signed by Page no. 1/15 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:31:24 +0530 Hindu Rao Hospital, the statement of the complainant Mr. Aman was recorded and an FIR was registered for offence u/s 341/323/34 IPC. On the basis of result of MLC No 7597/17 of Aman, offence u/s 325 IPC was also filed in the present case. The charge-sheet was only filed qua accused Bittoo Pal for the offences u/s 323/325/34 IPC with the allegations that on 10.12.2017 at about 07.00 PM in the front of house no. 23, Staff quarters, Roshnara Club, near railway line, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Roop Nagar, accused Smt Bittoo Pal alongwith two minor boys wrongfully restrained the complainant Sh. Aman and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant by throwing him on the ground/railway line. As per the chargesheet filed by the IO, boys namely Anup and Anuj had no role in the crime.
BRIEF OF COURT PROCEEDINGS:
02. Pursuant to cognizance, the accused was summoned. Upon appearance of the accused, complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused person. After hearing arguments, charge for offences punishable under section 341/325 IPC was framed against the accused on 01.04.2019 by the Ld Predecessor of the court, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. The statement u/s. 294 Cr.PC has been recorded by the Ld Predecessor of the court, wherein the accused had admitted the present FIR which is Ex. A-1, certificate u/s. 65-B Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. A-2, DD No. 21 A which is Ex. A-3 and MLC no 7597/17 which is Ex A4.
Digitally State Vs. Bittoo Pal signed by HIMANSHI Page no. 2/15 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:31:29 +0530
04. The prosecution had cited total 08 witnesses in the present matter and examined 06 witnesses during trial. PE was closed vide order dated 22.08.2022 by the Ld. Predecessor of the court and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of the accused.
05. Thereafter, an application seeking addition of co-accused persons in the present case was moved on behalf of the complainant and subsequently supplementary chargesheet was filed on 27.07.2023 wherein the suspect Anoop and Anuj were placed in column no 12. Qua this supplementary chargesheet, a protest petition was filed on 03.12.2024 by the complainant before the Ld Predecessor of the court.
06. File was received on 15.07.2025 from the court of Ld JMFC-05, Central, THC, Delhi pursuant to transfer of PS Roop Nagar to the newly created court of the undersigned vide order no 16/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/VI.E2(a)2025 dated 30.05.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi. The protest petition was then dismissed for non prosecution.
07. The statement of the accused was recorded on 24.07.2025 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused, in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations and tendered explanation that she had been falsely implicated to create pressure upon her and her family members to withdraw the molestation case filed by her daughter against the complainant. Accused chose not to lead DE.
Digitally signed by State Vs. Bittoo Pal HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI Page no. 3/15 TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:31:34 +0530 EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:-
08. PW1 is Sh. Aman who deposed that on 10.12.2017, at about 7.00 PM, he saw some persons were quarreling with each other when going towards to his house. He further deposed that the persons who were quarelling were Anoop, Anuj and Bittoo Pal (accused), the said three persons caught him and started beating him with dandas, some persons saved him from the clutches of the above said persons, the above said persons again started beating him, they started making a video of him, they asked him speak in the video that "Ram Lal" was standing on a railway line and four other persons were also standing on the railway line and out of the said four persons one was Ravi, who had quarreled with Amit and Bittoo Pal and also gave beating to them. He sustained injuries on his hand and leg, police officials reached took him to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital for his medical examination and later recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A and prepared site plan. Then he was duly cross examined at length by defense Counsel.
09. PW2 is HC Ram Milan who deposed that 10.12.2017 further investigation of the case was marked to him, he recorded the statement of first IO ASI Pratap and W/Ct. Parul, prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex. PW2/A, obtained MLC of the complainant, added Section 325 IPC as per result in MLC and that he handed over the case file to MHC (R) due to his transfer. He was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
State Vs. Bittoo Pal Digitally
signed by Page no. 4/15
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08
17:31:43
+0530
10. PW3 is W/Ct Rinki who did not remember the exact date of incident and deposed that in November 2018 she joined investigation of the present case and she alongwith IO SI Pratap Singh went to Roshnara club, Staff Quarters, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
She further deposed that accused Bittoo Pal, was found there and he was arrested vide arrest memo ExPW3/A by the IO. She also deposed that IO enquired about the incident from the two children of accused but did not arrest them. She identified the accused in the court. She was duly cross examined by the defence counsel.
11. PW4 is Ct Parul who deposed that on 10.12.2017, after registration of FIR in the present case, DO handed over to him the copy of FIR and original rukka which he further handed over to IO HC Ram Milan at the spot and returned back to PS. He was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
12. PW5 is SI Pratap Singh who deposed that on 10.12.2017, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM and at about 07:00 PM, an information regarding the present case was received vide DD No. 21A. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Parul went to the spot where they came to know that the injured was taken to the hospital i.e. HRH so he went to the HRH and Ct. Parul was asked to remain present at the spot. He met with complainant Aman in hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A, collected MLC of the complainant and returned back to the spot where he prepared rukka Ex. PW-5/A handed it over to Ct. Parul for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, further investigation was handed over to another IO HC Ram Milan, so he State Vs. Bittoo Pal Digitally signed by Page no. 5/15 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:31:50 +0530 was relieved from the investigation of the present case. He was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
13. PW6 is ASI Brijesh Kumar who deposed that on 06.07.2018 further investigation of the present case was marked to him by the order of SHO concerned and on 10.09.2018, he along with W/Ct. Rinki went in search of accused Smt. Bitto Pal at H.no. 120, Staff Quarters, Roshanara Road Club, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that at the above said house, accused was found present and he interrogated her and arrested accused Smt. Bitto Pal vide arrest memo Ex. PW 3/A and released her on furnishing bail bond as the offence was bailable. He then filed charge sheet before the Court after completing the investigation. He identified the accused before the court. He was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
ARGUMENTS:
14. Ld. APP for state had argued that complainant/injured has supported the prosecution story and his testimony has remained unrebutted and that on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offence U/s 325/341 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and she thus be convicted for the said offences.
15. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused argued that the accused had been implicated falsely in the present case due to previous enmity between the accused and the complainant, to State Vs. Bittoo Pal Page no. 6/15 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:31:58 +0530 create pressure upon the accused to withdraw the criminal case filed by the daughter of the accused upon the complainant and that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused. It was further argued that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and there are number of inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which entitles the accused to be acquitted.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
16. Arguments advanced by Ld. APP and Defence Counsel have been heard and evidence and documents on record have been carefully perused.
17. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons for the offence under Section 325/341 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused had voluntarily inflicted grievous injury on the person of complainant and had wrongfully restrained him.
At this juncture itself it would be trite to discuss the legal provisions involved in this case.
18. Section 320 states that the following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":-
First - Emasculation.
Second - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly -Privation of any member or joint.
State Vs. Bittoo Pal Digitally
signed by
Page no. 7/15
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08
17:32:07
+0530
Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing of the owers of any member or joint.
Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
18.1 Section 325 states that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
18.2 Section 339 IPC states that whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain.
18.3 Section 341 IPC states that whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
19. As far as the proof of alleged injuries is concerned, the same has been proved to be grievous hurt. The accused admitted the MLC Ex A4 in her statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC. The perusal of the said MLC shows that the doctor opined that the nature of injuries received on the body of the complainant as grievous. Thus, it now only remains to be seen whether the State Vs. Bittoo Pal Digitally signed by Page no. 8/15 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:32:12 +0530 accused caused these injuries 'voluntarily' and whether accused wrongfully restrained the complainant.
20. The criminal law was set into the motion in the present case on the basis of the DD no 21A about a quarrel. The perusal of DD no. 21A which is Ex A3 shows that the caller informed that "mere bhai ko chaku mara hai" . Thus, as per the first information of the crime, the incident of quarrel took place on 10.12.2017 near Roshanar Club, Roop Nagar, Delhi. Subsequently upon the statement on the complainant/injured, accused was implicated in the present case. This means that as per the prosecution, the injured, qua which the above call was received, was the complainant Amit.
21. From the perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution and from the defence taken by the accused, it is evident that the date, time and place of the above incident is not disputed. Infact the incident of quarrel itself between the accused and the complainant is also not disputed. It is only that their version of the incident differs. The complainant claims that he was just passing by from the area and the accused and his associates Anuj and Anup were quarrelling, they saw him and started beating him. Whereas the accused claims that complainant had come with one person namely Ram Lal, Ravi and some unknown persons and they all were attacking Amit, brother of Anup and Anuj, and when she intervened, the complainant came to attack her as well, so she tried to save herself during which the complainant fell and got injured.
The accused, however, has neither examined herself as a witness State Vs. Bittoo Pal Digitally signed by Page no. 9/15 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:32:20 +0530 nor examined any other witness in her defence and her version as such remains uncorroborated. Only limited corroboration can be taken in support of her defence from answers given by her in personal examination u/s 313/281 CrPC. In this scenario, the testimony of the complainant is the only statement of an eye witness available on oath. Thus, it is only his testimony that would lay down the the facts of the case bare for veracity. The version given by the PW1 requires careful scrutiny as he is the only public and eye witness of the incident.
22. PW 1 Amit is the injured and he deposed that he was beaten by the accused Bittoo Pal alongwith his associates Anuj and Anup (both not apprehended in the case). It is clear from the bare perusal of the statement of PW1 that he has said the accused alongwith Anup and Anuj beaten him and he got injuries in his leg and hand. He said three persons caught hold of him and started beating him with dandas. However, he has not deposed as to which of the said persons caught him and which one beaten him with danda. He has not described any manner in which he received the injuries. He has not attributed any specific act upon the accused before the court due to which he received the said injuries. One of the essential ingredients for conviction u/s 325 IPC is that the accused had caused the said grievous hurt voluntarily. However, there is nothing in the deposition of PW1 that accused caused the said injuries voluntarily as the act of causing the said injuries has not been described. Mere use of word "beaten" cannot satisfy the test of voluntariness and test of required mens rea on the part of the accused. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of State Vs. Bittoo Pal Digitally signed by Page no. 10/15 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:32:25 +0530 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mushirkha Bashirkha Musalman vs State Of Maharashtra 1982 SCC Online Bom 266 wherein while discussing the scope and applicability of section 325 IPC, it held the following:
"The Judge is not to trouble himself with seeking for direct proof of what the offender thought was likely to happen, but is to infer the nature of his act, taking him to have intended grievous hurt, or at least to have contemplated grievous hurt as likely to occur, when he did what everybody knows is likely to cause grievous hurt, and the more certainly drawing this conclusion where there is evidence of previous enmity against the party who was suffered. If the act was such that nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensure from it, then although grievous may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be his duty to convict the offender of simple hurt only. A person can be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and the intention correspond, or when grievous hurt has been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, though it may be of a different kind Though grievous hurt may be caused in an assault, it does not at all follow that the person who assaulted is guilty of causing grievous hurt under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. A person is only liable under section 325 of he Indian Penal Code if he voluntarily cause grievous hurt and voluntarily causing hurt" according to section 322 means if he intends to cause grievous hurt or knew himself to be likely to cause such hurt."
23. Hence, conjoint reading of the provision enshrined in section 325 IPC and the above mentioned decisions of the Hon'ble Digitally State Vs. Bittoo Pal signed by HIMANSHI Page no. 11/15 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:32:30 +0530 Courts enlightens that if the grievous hurt is caused to the victim due to the act of assailant, he can be convicted for causing grievous hurt u/s 325 IPC only if he either intended to cause grievous hurt or had the knowledge (while doing the said act) that grievous hurt could be ordinarily caused.If intention/knowledge is missing then the accused cannot be convicted u/s 325 IPC even if grievous hurt is caused due to his act.
24. Further, the testimony of PW1 is silent about pushing by the accused, due to which he alleged fell. It seems that before the court, the complainant gave a different version of the incident and same raises doubts on the veracity of the case of the prosecution.
25. Further, the perusal of cross examination of PW1 shows that he admitted the suggestions of the defence counsel that accused has filed criminal cases against him. He also admitted that he has association and friendly terms with one person namely Ram Lal. These admissions of the witness lend credence to the defence of the accused and the defence of the accused that complainant has implicated him cannot be denied outright.
26. The court is mindful of the fact that it is rare that a victim would shield the real perpetrator of the crime. Hence, there is kind of a sanctity attached to the statement of the injured/victim.
However, this does not mean that the statement of the injured is free from scrutiny or that it to be accepted at its face value. The cardinal principle of criminal law that the allegations against an accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt applies in every Digitally State Vs. Bittoo Pal signed by HIMANSHI Page no. 12/15 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:32:34 +0530 case. In the case at hand, the conjoint reading of the statement of cross examination of the injured and the statement of accused given in her personal examination shows that there is iota of possibility that due to prior animosity between the parties, the injured has implicated the accused in this case. Thus, it is incumbent to examine in the present case as to whether the version of the injured has been corroborated by other witnesses or not.
27. Except PW1, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police witnesses who reached at the spot after the incident.
There is no eye witness or public witness to the incident of quarrel in question. The perusal of the testimonies of PW2 to PW6 shows they have not deposed about the manner or the specific act due to which the injuries mentioned in MLC Ex A4 were caused. They have deposed about their role in the investigation. Thus, the act due to which the said injuries has been caused remains unclear and doubtful before the court.
28. Moreover, there are other glaring inconsistencies and lacuna in the case of the prosecution. Firstly, though the DD about the incident is on record, the PCR caller himself/herself has not been examined by the prosecution. No explanation was given for the same by the prosecution. The perusal of the said DD further shows that the caller reported that "bhai ko mara hai". It seems that the caller was the brother of the injured. However, neither the injured himself nor any other prosecution witness deposed about anything about the presence of the brother of the injured at the spot.
Digitally
signed by
HIMANSHI
State Vs. Bittoo Pal HIMANSHI TYAGI Page no. 13/15
TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08
17:32:43
+0530
29. Secondly, there is mention of "beating with dandas" in the testimony of PW1 whereas as per Ex A3, the injured was stated to be attacked with a knife. Infact the record is silent about the use of a knife. From this a possible conclusion can be drawn is that the DD Ex A3 is not a true version of incident.
30. Thirdly, neither the weapon of the offence i.e, the danda was recovered, nor any explanation qua search of it was given by prosecution. The evidence of prosecution is entirely silent about the efforts made to recover the same. Given that the statement of PW1 required corroboration, the seizure of the weapon of the offence could have gone a long way to aid the prosecution. However, the same has not been done. Therefore, these inconsistencies and loopholes in investigation on material aspects makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
31. To recapitulate the above discussion, the allegations against the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defence he/she put up but on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime in question, the entire case of the prosecution crumbles down. The prosecution has completely failed to bring home the charge under section 325/341 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, Smt Bittoo Pal w/o Sh Shiv Kumar is acquitted in the present case on the basis State Vs. Bittoo Pal Digitally signed by Page no. 14/15 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:32:39 +0530 of benefit of doubt.
32. Ordered accordingly.
The Judgment contains 15 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHIHIMANSHI TYAGI Pronounced in open Court on 08.08.2025. TYAGI Date:
2025.08.08 17:32:49 +0530 (Himanshi Tyagi) Metropolitan Magistrate-03 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi State Vs. Bittoo Pal Page no. 15/15