Delhi District Court
State vs Mahesh @ Mikki on 28 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI RAO,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Cr. Case No.20758/2019
FIR No. : 56/2018
P.S. : Sunlight Colony
U/S : 326/341/34 IPC
State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors.
1. The Sl. No. of the case DLSE020289732019
2. The date of institution of the 24.06.2019
case
3. The date of commission of 03.02.2018
offence
4. The name of complainant Riyaz
S/o Mustkim
R/o H. No.324/A, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi.
5. The name of accused 1. Mahesh @ Mikki
S/o Gopal
R/o H. No.324/6, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
2. Sandeep Singh Rekhi @
Goga
S/o Sardar Harnam Singh
R/o H. No.170, Upper Ground,
Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi
3. Bharat @ Kalu
S/o Mangu Ram
R/o H. No.324, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.1 of 20
6. The offence complained of 326/341/34 IPC
7. The plea of accused person Pleaded not guilty
8. Arguments heard on 30.05.2025
9. The final order Accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi
@ Goga is acquitted for
offence u/s 326/341/34 IPC.
Accused Mahesh @ Mikki &
Bharat @ Kalu are convicted
for offence u/s 326/341/34 IPC.
10. The date of judgment 02.12.2025
-:JUDGEMENT:-
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose of the case of the prosecution filed against the accused persons namely Mahesh @ Mikki, Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga and Bharat @ Kalu for having committed the offence punishable u/s 323/341/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on 03.02.2018 at about 04:15 PM at Railway Park, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sunlight Colony, all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed the complainant namely Mr. Riyaz to prevent him from proceeding in any direction which he had a right to proceed and also caused grievous injuries with a sharp object to the complainant. Based on these circumstances, the prosecution alleges that all the FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.2 of 20 accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 323/341/34 IPC.
3. After completion of the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Sunlight Colony and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Thereafter, the charge u/s 326/341/34 IPC was framed upon the accused persons vide order dated 09.01.2020 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 07 prosecution witnesses. Their testimonies in brief are as follows:
4.1. PW-1 Mr. Riyaz deposed that on 03.02.2018, his father had gone to Railway Park to graze goats. At about 04:00-05:00 PM, two persons namely Mikki and Kalu started fighting with a rehdi-
wala. His father intervened in the said altercation, upon which Mikki and Kalu began misbehaving with him. At that time, PW-1 was present at his office, which was situated at a distance of approximately 100 meters from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, his son Mohd. Kaif (aged about 12 years) came to the office and informed him about the incident. PW-1 immediately proceeded to the spot. When he objected to the conduct of the accused persons, accused Mikki and Kalu assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon (dhaardar hathiyar), causing injuries on his forehead and eyelid. In the meantime, accused Goga arrived at the spot and instigated Mikki and Kalu by saying "Maro saale ko, main dekh lunga kya hoga." Thereafter, both Mikki and Kalu again assaulted PW-1, as a result of FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.3 of 20 which he became unconscious. PW-1's wife called the police at 100 number. The police reached the spot and removed him to the Trauma Centre. PW-1 regained consciousness while being taken to the hospital and was discharged on the same day. After discharge, he went to the police station and submitted a written complaint (Ex.PW-1/A). However, no action was taken by the police against the accused persons initially. Thereafter, PW-1 approached higher authorities, and upon their intervention, the police registered the case. PW-1 further stated that the accused persons regularly threatened him to settle the matter. Even three days prior to his deposition, accused Goga threatened him to compromise the case. He further stated that the police apprehended the accused persons on the next day of the incident. After perusing the arrest memo of accused Sandeep Singh, PW-1 stated that the signature at point A did not belong to him and that he had not signed at Mark X. Thereafter, the arrest memo of accused Bharat @ Kalu was shown to the witness. Upon examination, PW-1 admitted that the signature at point A belonged to him. The said arrest memo was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B. When shown the site plan, PW-1 denied his signature at point A and stated that no site plan was prepared by the police in his presence. The same was marked as Mark Y. Two photographs were shown to the witness, and upon seeing them, PW-1 stated that the photographs depicted his injuries sustained at the time of the incident and that he himself had taken them. The photographs were exhibited as Ex.P-1. PW-1 further stated that he had provided six FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.4 of 20 photographs, but only two photographs were placed on record. PW-1 further deposed that accused Mikki had assaulted him with a sharp- edged weapon at the time of the incident. PW-1 had correctly identified accused Mikki, Goga and Kalu.
4.2. PW-2 Dr. Ritu Chauhan, MBBS, DNB (Obstetrics and Gynaecology), Bansal Hospital, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, deposed that on 03.02.2018, she was posted at AIIMS Trauma Centre, Surgery Casualty, as a Medical Officer. On that day, she examined one injured person namely Riyaz. After examining him, she made the following observations:
(i) Laceration over the left side of the forehead measuring 8 × 2 × 0.5 cm.
(ii) Laceration lateral to the left eye measuring 6 × 0.5 × 0.5 cm.
(ii) Laceration over the left side of the cheek measuring 2 × 0.5 × 0.5 cm.
(iii) Laceration over the occipital region measuring 3 × 0.5 × 0.5 cm.
(iv) Laceration over the left forearm measuring 3 × 1 × 0.5 cm.
She opined that all the aforesaid injuries were simple in nature and caused by a blunt weapon. She further stated that she had prepared the MLC bearing No. 500076042, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A, and which bears her signature at point A. She stated that she left AIIMS Hospital in March 2018.
4.3. PW-3 HC Hari Kishan deposed that on 09.02.2018, the Duty Officer handed over to him a copy of the FIR along with the original rukka at the police station. Thereafter, at about 03:30 PM, FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.5 of 20 he reached Railway Park, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi, where he met HC Trilok Singh. He handed over the copy of the FIR and the original rukka to him. Thereafter, the IO searched for the accused persons; however, they could not be traced. Subsequently, the IO recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. PW-3 further deposed that thereafter, he along with the IO returned to the police station, where his own statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.
4.4. PW-4 Ct. Sonu Kumar deposed that in the month of March 2019, he was posted as a Constable at Police Post Sarai Kale Khan, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sunlight Colony. Due to lapse of time, he did not remember the exact date. He stated that he, along with ASI Yogesh, visited the house of accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga, situated at Hari Nagar Ashram, Sunlight Colony. The complainant Riyaz was also accompanying them at that time. Upon reaching the house, accused Sandeep Singh was found present there. The complainant Riyaz informed ASI Yogesh that accused Sandeep Singh had instigated accused Bharat and Mahesh to assault him. The IO/ASI Yogesh arrested accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga vide arrest memo Mark X. The IO also prepared the personal search memo of accused Sandeep Singh vide Ex.PW4/1. Thereafter, PW-4, along with the IO and the complainant Riyaz, proceeded to the house of accused Bharat at Hari Nagar. Accused Bharat was found present at his residence. The IO arrested accused Bharat vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. The IO prepared the personal FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.6 of 20 search memo of accused Bharat vide Ex.PW4/2. Thereafter, PW-4, along with the IO, returned to the police station. This witness had correctly identified the accused accused Sandeep Singh and Bharat. 4.5. PW-5 Ct. Satish deposed that on 23.04.2018, he along with HC Trilok Singh was on emergency duty. He further deposed that on the same day, accused Mahesh came to the police station. The Investigating Officer, HC Trilok Singh, inquired from accused Mahesh in his presence and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW5/1. He further stated that the IO arrested accused Mahesh vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/2. The IO also prepared the personal search memo of accused Mahesh vide Ex.PW5/3. This witness had correctly identified accused Mahesh.
4.6. PW-6 ASI Trilok Dabas deposed that on 03.02.2018, he received DD No.38A regarding MLC No. 500076042/2018, whereupon he proceeded to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He stated that when he reached the hospital, the MLC had not yet been prepared and the complainant was not present there. For that reason, the DD entry was kept pending. Thereafter, on 04.02.2018, he received the MLC from the hospital. He then visited the house of the complainant, but the complainant refused to give his statement at that time. On 09.02.2018, the complainant Mr. Riyaz came to the police station and submitted a written complaint. After evaluating the MLC and the statement of the complainant, he found commission of offences under Sections 323/341/34 IPC. He thereafter prepared the tehrir vide Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.7 of 20 that he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. The site plan, which was earlier marked as Mark Y on 24.09.2022, was later exhibited as Ex.PW6/B. He stated that point A in the site plan marks the place of occurrence. On the same day, he recorded the statements of the father of the complainant, namely Mustkin and Ct. Hari Kishan. Thereafter, he searched for the accused persons namely Sandeep, Mahesh, and Bharat and served them with notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. The said notices were exhibited as Ex.PW6/C, Ex. PW-6/D and Ex. PW-6/E. He further deposed that on 23.04.2018, accused Mahesh joined the investigation. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mahesh vide Ex.PW5/1. He thereafter arrested accused Mahesh vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/2 and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/3. Accused Mahesh was subsequently released on police bail. On the same day, he recorded the statement of Ct. Satish. He further stated that thereafter he was transferred from Police Station Sunlight Colony and the file was marked to another IO. This witness had correctly identified the accused persons.
4.7. PW-7 ASI Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 23.04.2019, he, along with Ct. Sonu, visited the house of the complainant Riyaz for the purpose of investigation at Hari Nagar, near Ashram, New Delhi. The complainant met them at his residence and accompanied them, as he was aware of the whereabouts of the accused persons. They first proceeded to the house of accused Sandeep Singh @ Rekhi @ Goga, situated at House No. 120, Hari Nagar, Ashram, FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.8 of 20 New Delhi. The accused was found present at his house and was interrogated in connection with the present case. During interrogation, the accused confessed to his involvement in the offence. PW-7 recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sandeep Singh vide Ex.PW7/1. PW-7 further deposed that accused Sandeep Singh was arrested vide arrest memo earlier marked as Mark X, now exhibited as Ex.PW7/2. The personal search memo of accused Sandeep Singh was exhibited as Ex.PW4/1. The accused was informed that the offence was bailable and accordingly, he was released on police bail upon furnishing surety. Thereafter, the complainant took PW-7 and Ct. Sonu to the house of co-accused Bharat @ Kalu, situated at House No. 324, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi. The accused Bharat was found present at his residence. Upon interrogation, he admitted his involvement in the offence. His detailed disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW7/3. Thereafter, accused Bharat was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW4/2. Accused Bharat was also released on police bail. PW-7 further deposed that thereafter they returned to the Police Post, where the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and he was discharged. After completion of the investigation, PW-7 filed the charge-sheet before the Court. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, he obtained a subsequent medical opinion on the MLC of the complainant/injured. As per the subsequent opinion, the nature of injury was declared grievous, and accordingly, Section 325 IPC was FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.9 of 20 added. A supplementary charge-sheet was thereafter filed against the accused persons. PW-7 had correctly identified accused Bharat @ Kalu and accused Sandeep Singh @ Rekhi @ Goga.
5. After examination of all the prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 10.09.2024. Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons was recorded separately on 30.11.2024 u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') wherein they denied the allegations and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present matter. Further, the accused persons, in the present case, chose not to lead DE and thereafter, the matter was straight away listed for final arguments.
6. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the sides.
7. The Ld. APP urged that the testimony of the complainant could be relied upon as no material contradictions have been found and he has supported the version of the prosecution and his complaint throughout the case. It is further submitted by Ld. APP that the testimonies of other material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies on any ground.
8. Ld. LAC for accused Mahesh @ Mikki and Bharat @ Kalu and Ld. Counsel for accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga, on the other hand, have argued that the accused persons have been falsely FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.10 of 20 implicated in the present case. It is further argued on behalf of the accused persons that the accused persons were not present at the spot of the incident when the incident took place. In a nutshell, the accused persons have taken the defence of plea of alibi. It is, therefore, requested on behalf of the accused persons that they may be acquitted.
9. I have gone through the case file with due circumspection.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
10. To establish an offence under Section 326 IPC, which deals with "Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means," the following essential ingredients must be proven:
(i) Voluntarily Causing Hurt:
The accused must have committed an act with the intent to cause hurt or with the knowledge that their action was likely to cause hurt.
(a) The act must be intentional and not accidental.
(b) It must be committed without "grave and sudden provocation" as defined under Section 335 IPC, which is the primary exception to Section 326.
11. Further, in order to prove an offence under Section 341 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove:
(i) That the accused voluntarily obstructed the complainant to proceed further in any direction;
FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.11 of 20
(ii) The direction in which the complainant was proceeding he had a right to proceed in that direction.
12. Decision with respect to accused Mahesh @ Mikki:
A. Charge under Section 326 IPC:- The charge against accused Mahesh @ Mikki under Section 326 IPC requires the prosecution to prove that he voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant by means of a dangerous or sharp-edged weapon. In the present case, the complainant/injured PW-1 Riyaz has categorically deposed that accused Mahesh @ Mikki assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon during the incident. The testimony of PW-1 is clear, consistent and cogent, and no ambiguity has been left with respect to the role attributed to accused Mahesh @ Mikki. PW-1 being an injured witness, his presence at the spot is proved beyond doubt. The law is well settled that the testimony of an injured witness carries greater evidentiary value, as such a witness would not ordinarily shield the real offender or falsely implicate an innocent person. In the present case, despite thorough and searching cross-examination, the defence has failed to bring on record any material contradiction, omission or improvement which could discredit the testimony of PW-1 insofar as accused Mahesh @ Mikki is concerned.
The ocular version of PW-1 finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence. The MLC and subsequent medical opinion duly proved by the prosecution establish that the complainant sustained grievous injuries. The nature, seat and FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.12 of 20 dimensions of the injuries are fully consistent with the use of a sharp-edged weapon. The medical evidence thus lends strong assurance to the testimony of PW-1 and rules out any possibility of false implication or exaggeration.
In view of the unimpeached testimony of the injured witness, duly corroborated by medical evidence, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mahesh @ Mikki voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant by means of a sharp-edged weapon. Accordingly, accused Mahesh @ Mikki is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
B. Charge under Section 341 IPC:- As regards the offence under Section 341 IPC, the prosecution has alleged that the act of wrongful restraint was committed by accused Mahesh @ Mikki; the perusal of the statement of PW-1 dated 24.09.2022 has revealed that PW-1 has clearly stated that "thereafter, I went to the abovesaid place and when I objected to their behaviour, the accused Kalu and Mikki hit me with pointed weapon on my forehead and eyelid."
In the preceding paragraph, it is clearly shown how offence under Section 326 IPC is made out against accused Mahesh @ Mikki. In view of the same, it is important to note that Section 341 IPC occurs when a person voluntarily obstructs another to proceed in particular direction, therefore, if Section 326 IPC is made out that means in order to voluntarily cause grievous hurt to a person, the accused must first restrict or obstruct the movement of the victim as FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.13 of 20 without restraining, stopping or preventing the victim from moving freely, it is practically impossible to inflict such injury. In cases under Section 326 IPC, the act causing grievous hurt necessarily involves restriction of movement whether by physically holding the victim, blocking their path or surrounding them. This obstructions amounts to wrongful restrained.
Therefore, when the facts and evidence establish that the accused committed the offence u/s 326 IPC, and also implies that the accused wrongfully restrained the victim, thereby attracting Section 341 IPC.
13. Decision with regard to accused accused Bharat @ Kalu:
A. Charge under Section 326 IPC:- The charge against accused Bharat @ Kalu under Section 326 IPC is that he, along with co-accused Mahesh @ Mikki, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant by assaulting him with a sharp-edged weapon. PW- 1 Riyaz, the complainant as well as the injured witness, has categorically deposed that both accused assaulted him during the incident. The testimony of PW-1 clearly attributes active participation in the beating to accused Bharat @ Kalu and not merely a subsidiary or passive role.
The evidence of PW-1 is consistent and unambiguous on the aspect that accused Bharat @ Kalu also took part in the assault which resulted in grievous injuries to the complainant. His presence at the spot and participation in the beating stand firmly established.
FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.14 of 20 The law is well settled that when the injured witness gives a clear and direct account of the assault and attributes specific acts to the accused, such testimony, if found trustworthy, can by itself form the basis of conviction.
The medical evidence on record, particularly the MLC and subsequent medical opinion, establishes that the complainant sustained grievous injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The nature and location of the injuries are consistent with the manner of assault described by PW-1. The medical evidence thus corroborates the ocular version and establishes that the assault was of such nature as to attract Section 326 IPC.
Further, in the present case, the evidence clearly shows that accused Bharat @ Kalu acted in concert with co-accused Mahesh @ Mikki and actively participated in the beating which resulted in grievous hurt to the complainant. The acts of both accused formed part of the same transaction and were executed with a shared intention. Accordingly, the offence under Section 326 IPC is proved against accused Bharat @ Kalu, and his liability is further reinforced by the application of Section 34 IPC.
B. Charge under Section 341 IPC:- As regards the offence under Section 341 IPC, the prosecution has alleged that accused Bharat @ Kalu also committed the act of wrongful restraint. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 dated 24.09.2022 reveals that the complainant has specifically stated that when he objected to the conduct of the accused persons, both accused, namely Kalu and FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.15 of 20 Mikki, assaulted him with a pointed weapon on his forehead and eyelid. The said statement clearly attributes joint conduct and simultaneous action to both accused, thereby establishing the active participation of accused Bharat @ Kalu in the occurrence.
In the foregoing discussion, this Court has already returned a finding that the offence under Section 326 IPC stands proved against accused Bharat @ Kalu. Once it is established that accused Bharat @ Kalu voluntarily participated in causing grievous hurt to the complainant, the necessary corollary is that the movement of the complainant was obstructed or restricted at the time of the assault. The offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC is attracted where a person voluntarily obstructs another from proceeding in a direction in which he has a right to proceed.
In the present case, the manner of assault itself demonstrates that the complainant was first intercepted and prevented from moving freely, without which the infliction of grievous injuries on vital parts of the body would not have been possible. Whether such restraint was caused by physically holding the complainant, blocking his path or acting in concert with the co-accused so as to overpower him, the result remains that the complainant was wrongfully restrained within the meaning of Section 339 IPC.
Thus, when the facts and evidence on record clearly establish that accused Bharat @ Kalu committed the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, they simultaneously disclose the commission of wrongful restraint as an integral part of the same transaction.
FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.16 of 20 Consequently, the offence under Section 341 IPC is also held to be proved against accused Bharat @ Kalu.
14. Decision with regard to accused accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga:
A. Charge under Section 326 IPC (read with Section 34 IPC):-
The prosecution has alleged that accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga instigated the co-accused and thereby shared the common intention to cause grievous hurt to the complainant. However, upon a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 326 IPC qua accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga.
Firstly, no specific overt act of assault has been attributed to accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga. The complainant has not consistently stated that accused Sandeep Singh inflicted any injury upon him or that he was armed with any weapon at the time of the incident. The allegation against him is confined to a vague assertion of instigation, without specifying the words allegedly used, the timing of such instigation, or the manner in which it influenced the co-accused.
Secondly, the alleged instigation is not supported by any independent or reliable corroboration. None of the other prosecution witnesses, including the investigating officers, have deposed to having heard or witnessed any act of instigation on the part of FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.17 of 20 accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga. There is also no recovery of any weapon or incriminating article at his instance which could connect him to the commission of the offence.
Thirdly, the prosecution has failed to establish the existence of common intention so as to invoke Section 34 IPC. Common intention cannot be inferred merely from presence at the spot or from bald allegations of instigation. There must be clear and cogent evidence to show prior meeting of minds or participation in furtherance of the common design. In the present case, the evidence is conspicuously silent on any pre-arranged plan or coordinated conduct involving accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga.
In the absence of proof of assault, participation, or shared intention, the charge under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained against accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga.
B. Charge under Section 341 IPC (read with Section 34 IPC):- The offence under Section 341 IPC requires proof of voluntary obstruction of the complainant so as to prevent him from proceeding in a direction in which he had a right to proceed. In the present case, the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga either restrained the complainant himself or acted in concert with the co-accused to cause such restraint.
FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.18 of 20 The complainant has not attributed any role of obstruction, interception or restraint to accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga. There is no allegation that he blocked the complainant's path, physically held him, or otherwise restricted his movement. The testimony of PW-1, insofar as it relates to accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga, is vague and inconsistent and does not inspire confidence.
Further, the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga shared any common intention with the co-accused to wrongfully restrain the complainant. The mere presence of an accused at or near the place of occurrence, without proof of participation or intention, is not sufficient to attract liability under Section 341 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
Accordingly, the essential ingredients of wrongful restraint remain unproved against accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga either caused grievous hurt, wrongfully restrained the complainant, or shared any common intention with the co-accused in the commission of the alleged offences. The allegations against him are founded on conjectures and surmises and do not meet the standard of proof required in criminal law.
FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.19 of 20
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mahesh @ Mikki and Bharat @ Kalu, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant and voluntarily caused grievous hurt by a sharp-edged weapon, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 326/341/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused Mahesh @ Mikki and Bharat @ Kalu are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326/341/34 IPC
16. Further, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof, and where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted. Consequently, accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused Sandeep Singh Rekhi @ Goga is acquitted of the offences under Sections 326/341/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court today on 02nd December, 2025.
(ADITI RAO) Metropolitan Magistrate-07, South-
East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(ADITI RAO) Metropolitan Magistrate-07, South-
East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No.56/2018 State Vs. Mahesh @ Mikki & Ors. Page No.20 of 20