Delhi District Court
State vs Rajani Singh on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW
DELHI
CNR no.DLST01-004775-2022
Session Case No. 220/2022
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Rajani Singh
R/o Flat no. A-2, B-85, Malviya Nagar
Upper Ground, Panchsheel Vihar, New Delhi
FIR No. : 282/2020
Samar
Police Station : Malviya Nagar
vishal
Under Section : 308/289/509 IPC
Digitally signed
by Samar
vishal Date of assignment : 02.03.2022
Date of committal : 09.05.2022
Date:
2026.01.24
16:33:33
+0530 Date on which arguments heard : 08.01.2026
Date of decision : 24.01.2026
Decision: (1) Convicted for offences punishable under section
308/289 IPC.
(2) Acquitted for offence punishable under section 509 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. The present case arises out of the prosecution of accused Rajni for offences under Sections 308/289/509 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the accused provoked her pet dog to attack the complainant/victim Sapna, causing serious injuries to her face and leaving her face disfigured. It is also alleged that the accused used insulting language, thereby offending the complainant's modesty. The central issue for Page no. 1 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 determination is whether the complainant was actually subjected to the alleged dog attack and humiliation, and whether the evidence on record establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in this regard.
2. The case of the prosecution, in essence, is that the victim Sapna was employed by the accused, Rajni Singh. According to the prosecution, some portion of the victim's salary remained unpaid. The accused allegedly assured the victim that the outstanding amount would be settled upon her visit to the accused's residence. However, due to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, the victim initially expressed her inability and reluctance to go to the accused's residence. The accused is stated to have again called the victim and asked the victim to come to her home to take her dues.
3. On this the complainant/victim Sapna eventually went to Samar the residence of the accused on 11.06.2020 in the evening hours. vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 It is the prosecution's further case that upon arrival, the accused 16:33:36 +0530 asked the complainant to bring her clothes and bathe at her house. When the complainant again requested payment of her outstanding salary, the accused allegedly made an indecent and unlawful demand, stating that she would be paid only if she engaged herself in sex. The complainant refused. At this, the accused is stated to have threatened the victim with dire consequences if she did not comply. The complainant persisted in her refusal, whereupon the accused allegedly instigated and provoked her pet dog to attack the complainant. As per the Page no. 2 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 prosecution, the dog pounced upon the victim and bit her multiple times on her face and neck. The attack was severe and resulted in significant injuries; two of the victim's teeth were allegedly dislodged and fell out due to the dog bites. The complainant cried out in pain, but instead of helping her, the accused allegedly reiterated her threats and warned her against disclosing the incident to anyone. The prosecution further states that the victim had to undergo vaccination as a result of the injuries sustained from the dog bites. When the complainant asked the accused for financial assistance to obtain medical treatment, the accused allegedly refused and threatened her again. After managing to leave the premises, the victim went to Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, where she received initial treatment. Due to the seriousness of her injuries, she was thereafter referred to Safdarjung Hospital, where further medical treatment was carried out. According to the prosecution, neither of the hospitals informed the police of the medico-legal case. The victim, being illiterate and unaware of legal procedures, also did not herself approach the police immediately.
4. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a formal complaint on 02.07.2020. Based on this complaint, the police registered an FIR under Section 289 IPC relating to negligent conduct with respect to an animal. During the course of investigation, after recording statements of witnesses, collecting medical documents, and examining the circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer concluded that more serious offences were disclosed.
Page no. 3 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 Accordingly, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 308 and 289 IPC.
5. Subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet on 02.03.2022, the learned Court of the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences disclosed therein under Sections 308 and 289 of the Indian Penal Code and the said offences being triable exclusively by the Court of Session, committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 09.05.2022, in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Upon committal, vide order dated 10.10.2022, charge was framed against the accused Rajni for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 289 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence Samar vishal against her were specifically put to the accused, to which she Digitally denied the allegations and claimed false implication. signed by Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.24 16:33:42 +0530 8. The accused was thereafter afforded an opportunity to lead defence evidence. Availing the said opportunity, the accused examined two witnesses in her defence in an attempt to probabilise her version of the events. Upon completion of the defence evidence, the same was also closed. Page no. 4 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
9. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused. I have also carefully perused the entire material on record, including the oral and documentary evidence led by both sides. Accordingly, I now proceed to the appreciation of evidence and the final verdict.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant Sapna as PW1. She is the most important witness of the prosecution because she herself is also the injured of the case.
PW-1 Sapna stated that she used to work for accused Rajni Singh, whom she correctly identified during her evidence in court. She deposed that she worked for about one and a half months doing massage work at Corner Market, Malviya Nagar, but was not paid any salary. She stated that on the first day of lockdown the accused went to her native place. When PW-1 asked for her salary due to her difficulties, the accused asked her to call a helpline and refused to pay even Rs.2,000/- which she asked for her rent.
11. PW-1 stated that after about three months the accused returned to Delhi. She visited the accused's house for four to five days and finally met her. There were four other girls present at the house. When PW-1 asked for her money, the accused refused and told her that money would be given only if she did something in return and asked her to do wrong and immoral things, including making physical relations with people visiting her house. PW-1 refused and some scuffle took place between the two. PW-1 further stated that the accused left her in one room Page no. 5 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 and released a dog in that room and locked the room from outside. One girl Moni was also present in the room. The dog attacked PW-1, bit her on the face and neck, pulled flesh from her face and she lost two teeth. Moni started screaming, after which the accused opened the door. PW-1 stated that the accused asked her not to scream and threatened her.
12. She stated that when the accused found that she was bleeding, the accused took her to Madan Mohan Malviya Samar Hospital from where she was later referred to Safdarjung vishal Hospital. She stated that she could not speak at that time and Digitally signed therefore did not report the matter to the police immediately.
by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 16:33:45 +0530After about 20 days, she lodged a complaint with the police. She identified her complaint Ex. PW1/A and also identified the photograph of the dog Ex. PW1/B. On being permitted to answer leading questions, PW-1 stated that on 11.06.2020 the accused told her that she would get money only if she had sex by saying "tumhe sex karna padega, tab tumhe paise milenge" and also threatened to kill her..
13. In her cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that she did not remember the exact date when she started working, that her salary was Rs.18,000/- per month, and that she was in need of money during lockdown. She admitted that she and Moni were together in the room and that the accused gave her Rs. 2,000/- for treatment. She admitted that her son asked the accused for money for treatment and pending salary and that she took legal advice before filing the complaint. She admitted that she did not take the police to the accused's house and that no site plan was prepared. Page no. 6 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 She clarified that the accused did not directly set the dog upon her but voluntarily stated that the dog was intentionally left in the room saying that "Janbujh ke room mein chod diya tha". She denied all suggestions of false implication or false deposition.
14. The next important witness is PW4 Moni. She is the eyewitness according to victim Sapna who said that Moni was present in the same room where she was attacked by the dog. PW-4 stated that she is 9th standard pass, can read and write Hindi, and has been residing at her given address since birth. She stated that she does not remember the exact date, month, or year of the incident, but that it occurred during the first lockdown period. She deposed that she, along with Sapna, Akash and another person had gone to the house of accused Rajni Singh, whom she correctly identified in court, as the accused had invited them for lunch. She stated that earlier the accused was running a salon.
15. PW-4 deposed that on the day of the incident she was cooking chicken at the house of the accused. She stated that Sapna was inside the room of accused Rajni and that the accused Samar had one pet dog. She stated that the said dog bit Sapna. She vishal further stated that at that time she was inside the kitchen and did Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 not see when the dog bit Sapna. She also stated that the police 16:33:48 +0530 did not inquire her regarding the incident and did not record her statement pertaining to the case.
16. As the witness resiled from her earlier statement, she was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Page no. 7 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 Additional Public Prosecutor. During such cross-examination, PW-4 denied having stated to the police that when Sapna entered the house of the accused, the pet dog went towards Sapna and that Sapna had asked the accused whether the dog would bite her saying "ye katega to nahin", and that in the meantime the dog bit Sapna on her mouth. She also denied having stated to the police whether the accused deliberately made her pet dog bite Sapna. She denied the suggestions that she had been won over by the accused, that she was suppressing the true facts, or that she was deposing falsely or under pressure. In her cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-4 admitted that when she was preparing food inside the kitchen, accused Rajni was with her.
17. The next important pieces of evidence are the medical evidences. A Medical Board was constituted for the medical examination of the victim, Sapna, for the purpose of assessment of the injuries allegedly sustained by her in the incident. PW-2, Dr. Abhishek Yadav, was one of the member of the Medical Samar vishal Board and proved the report of the Medical Board, which is Digitally signed by Samar vishal exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. Date: 2026.01.24 16:33:53 +0530
18. PW-2 Dr. Abhishek Yadav deposed that on 13.07.2020 he was posted as Associate Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi, and was a member of the Medical Board constituted by the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, on the request of Sub-Inspector Krishan Kumar, Police Station Malviya Nagar, for further medical examination of the victim Sapna and for providing opinion regarding her injuries. He stated that along with the said request, Page no. 8 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 the Medical Board was supplied with the copy of FIR No. 282/2020, PS Malviya Nagar, the Emergency/Casualty Registration Card of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital dated 11.06.2020, the OPD record of Safdarjung Hospital dated 11.06.2020, and the Medico-Legal Certificate of AIIMS bearing MLC No. 4440/2020 dated 03.07.2020.
19. PW-2 further deposed that the Medical Board consisted of himself, Dr. Vanika (Junior Resident, Member Secretary), Dr. Varun Chandran (Senior Medical Officer, Member), and Dr. Kulbhushan Prasad (Associate Professor, Chairman). The Board examined the victim Sapna and found eight injuries on her body, the details of which were recorded in the Medical Board Opinion dated 13.07.2020. PW-2 proved that the Medical Board gave its opinion on specific queries raised by the Investigating Officer. With respect to the first query, the Board opined that injuries numbered 1 to 8 could be sustained due to dog bite. Regarding the second query, the Board opined that injuries numbered 1 to 5 had caused permanent disfiguration of the face, injuries numbered 6 and 7 were fractures and injuries to the teeth and were therefore grievous in nature, and injury number 8 was a lacerated wound on the neck. PW-2 stated that the neck is a vital area containing sensitive structures such as large blood vessels and the trachea situated superficially, and injury to any of these structures could lead to fatality. Accordingly, injury number 8 Samar was opined to be dangerous and life-threatening. In response to vishal Digitally signed the third query, the Medical Board opined that injuries numbered by Samar vishal 1 to 8 could be sustained due to dog bite, which is a dangerous Date:
2026.01.24 16:34:05 +0530 Page no. 9 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 means of causing injury. No additional information was provided in response to the fourth query.
20. PW-2 deposed that after examination of the victim, the Medical Board concluded that the injuries sustained by the complainant were collectively grievous and dangerous in nature and were caused by dog bite, and that the duration of all the injuries was consistent with the history of the case. PW-2 proved the detailed Medical Board Opinion bearing No. CLFM-08/2020 dated 13.07.2020 as Ex. PW2/A. He was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity being given.
21. Another piece of medical evidence is the testimony of PW-3, Dr. Rajendra Meena, who proved the Medico-Legal Certificate bearing No. 4440/2020 dated 03.07.2020 of the victim, Sapna. The said MLC was prepared after approximately 23 days from the date of the alleged incident. Its evidentiary value is required to be appreciated in the backdrop of the detailed and comprehensive opinion rendered by the Medical Board of the same hospital
22. Remaining are the police witnesses, involved in the investigation of the case. PW-5 WSI Manisha deposed that on 07.07.2020 she was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Malviya Nagar and on that day she joined the investigation with the Investigating Officer, SI Krishan Kumar. She stated that accused Rajni Singh, whom she correctly identified in court, was present at the police station and was interrogated by the IO in her presence. She further deposed that thereafter the accused was Page no. 10 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 arrested by the investigating officer vide arrest memo Ex.
PW5/A. She further deposed that the accused handed over one book of dog and cat clinic, which was seized by the investigating officer vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/C. PW-5 stated that after the arrest, the medical examination of the accused was conducted at AIIMS Hospital. She further stated that due to the lockdown imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the accused was thereafter taken to Tihar Jail and lodged in the Prisoner Complex. In her cross-examination, PW-5 stated that she did not remember the exact time of arrest of the accused or the exact time when she reached AIIMS Hospital, though it was evening time. She denied the suggestions that the accused was not arrested in her presence, that signatures of the accused were obtained on blank papers, or that she was deposing falsely.
23. PW-6 Sub-Inspector Ram Singh deposed that on 02.07.2020 he was posted as ASI and working as Duty Officer at PS Malviya Nagar. He proved the registration of the FIR of this case over a complainant and handed over the documents to ASI Sunil. He proved the computerised copy of the FIR as Ex. PW6/A, the endorsement on the complainant as Ex. PW6/B, and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW6/C. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the FIR was ante-timed or ante-dated.
24. PW-7 ASI Sunil Kumar deposed that on 03.07.2020 he was posted as ASI at PS Malviya Nagar and the present case file was marked to him for further investigation. He stated that on that day the victim came to the police station to enquire about the Page no. 11 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 progress of the case and, on her complaint of pain, she was sent to AIIMS Hospital through PSI Manisha for medical examination. After the medical examination, he along with PSI Manisha and the victim visited the spot of the incident at J-4/39, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, where he prepared the site plan at the instance of the victim, which is exhibited as Ex. PW7/A. He further stated that after going through the case file and in consultation with senior police officers, Section 308 IPC was added in the present case. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector Krishan.
25. In cross-examination, PW-7 stated that the victim came to the police station at about 02:00 PM and that they reached the spot at about 07:00-08:00 PM. He stated that no public person was present at the spot and that the house of the accused was locked when they reached. He admitted that he prepared the site plan of the outside of the house. He further stated that he did not record the statement of Moni and voluntarily stated that he recorded the supplementary statement of the victim and the statement of PSI Manisha. He denied the suggestions that he did not visit the spot or that he prepared the site plan at the police station, and denied that he was deposing falsely.
26. PW-8 Sub-Inspector Krishan Kumar the last investigation, deposed that on 06.07.2020 he was posted as Sub-Inspector(SI) at police station Malviya Nagar and the present case file was marked to him for further investigation. He stated that on 07.07.2020 he called accused Rajni Singh to the police station, interrogated her, and thereafter arrested her vide arrest memo Page no. 12 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 already exhibited as Ex. PW5/A. He stated that the personal search of the accused was conducted by WSI Manisha. He further stated that the accused handed over documents relating to vaccination of her pet dog, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/C. He stated that thereafter the medical examination of the accused was conducted through WSI Manisha and the accused was produced before the Court at Tihar Jail during the COVID-19 period and was remanded to judicial custody.
27. PW-8 further deposed that on 08.07.2020 he moved an Samar vishal application to the Superintendent of AIIMS Hospital for Digitally signed by constitution of a Medical Board. Pursuant thereto, a Medical Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.24 Board was constituted and the medical examination of the victim 16:34:16 +0530 was conducted on 10.07.2020, and he obtained the Medical Board opinion. He further stated that during investigation the complainant Sapna handed over her medical documents, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A. He stated that during the course of investigation he recorded the statement of eye- witness Moni @ Sulekha Sarkar, prepared the charge-sheet, and filed the same in Court. In response to a Court question regarding PW-4 Moni resiling from her previous statement, PW-8 stated that PW-4 had given her statement Ex. PW4/DA to him and for reasons best known to her, she did not depose on those lines before the Court.
28. In cross-examination, PW-8 stated that on 07.07.2020 the accused came to the police station at about 10:00 AM and that the complainant was not present at the time of arrest. He stated that he did not remember the exact time when the accused was Page no. 13 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 sent for medical examination and admitted that he did not visit the spot of the incident during investigation. He denied the suggestions that signatures of the accused were obtained on blank papers or that he was deposing falsely.
29. This constitutes the overall evidence led by the prosecution. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against her were specifically put to the accused. She denied the allegations in entirety and claimed that she had been falsely implicated.
30. In her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that the complainant Sapna had joined her Ayurvedic Centre, namely Indu Ayurvedic Centre, in January 2020 as a cleaning worker. She categorically denied that the complainant was ever assigned the work of massage. According to the accused, the complainant worked with her for about one and a half months, during which she was paid approximately Rs.10,000-Rs.10,500, though salary for about 14 days remained unpaid.
31. The accused admitted that she advised the complainant to contact the helpline and stated that she had returned to Delhi on 28.05.2020. She further stated that during her absence from Delhi, the complainant visited her residence two to three times, and on those occasions, the complainant met Dhirendra Singh, Samar vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.24 16:34:21 +0530 Page no. 14 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 the accused's brother, who informed her that the accused was not present and asked her to come later.
32. With regard to the incident dated 11.06.2020, the accused stated that at around 4:20 PM, the complainant came to her residence when she herself, along with Ritika Rai, Moni, Dhirendra Singh and Akash, was present in the house. She stated that Moni was in the kitchen while she herself was in the drawing room. The accused described her residence as a two-bedroom house and stated that the dog was in another room, the door of which was slightly open. According to her, the complainant was alone in one of the rooms and was opening a cupboard, upon which the dog, being unfamiliar with the complainant, entered the room and bit her.
33. The accused stated that on hearing the noise, she immediately rushed to the room to rescue the complainant and along with Chandan and Akash, took her to Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital in her neighbour's car. From there, the complainant was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, where the accused also accompanied her. She stated that the dog had bitten the complainant above the lip and had also caused injuries on her neck with its paws. She claimed that she herself intervened to rescue the complainant from the dog.
34. The accused further stated that at Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, one injection was not available, due to which the complainant was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. She stated that she asked the complainant to contact her family members. She Page no. 15 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 further stated that two days after the incident, the daughter of the complainant called her demanding money for ration, to which she replied that she had already given money to the complainant for ration and medicines at Safdarjung Hospital and that she was in Meerut on that day.
35. She further stated that thereafter the son of the complainant called her two to three times and demanded that the complainant be taken to Max Hospital. According to the accused, she expressed her inability to meet such demand due to her financial constraints, as she had to bear expenses for her younger sister's wedding. She alleged that the son of the complainant insisted and threatened to lodge a complaint against her if she did not pay Rs.2 lakhs.
36. The accused asserted that the incident was purely accidental and occurred without any fault on her part. She further Samar vishal alleged that for about 20-22 days after the incident, the Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:25 +0530 complainant and her family attempted to extort money from her and sought to settle the matter, and when she did not accede to their demands, a false case was registered against her.
37. In her defence, the accused Rajni examined two witnesses.
Her first witness is DW-1 Dhirendra Singh @ Chandan who deposed on oath that the incident pertains to the month of February-March 2020, probably 12.03.2020, when he along with his friends Akash, Ritika, Moni and accused Rajni Singh were residing in a rented house at Malviya Nagar, Delhi. The said house was taken on rent by him, Akash and accused Rajni Singh, Page no. 16 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 though he could not recall the complete address. He stated that at about 03:30 PM on the day of the incident, he along with Akash, Ritika and accused Rajni Singh, was having breakfast in the house, while Moni was cooking chicken in the kitchen. At that time, the doorbell rang and when he opened the door, he found Sapna standing outside, who thereafter entered the house.
38. DW-1 further deposed that accused Rajni Singh asked Sapna to wash her hands as it was the period of the Covid-19 pandemic. Sapna accordingly went to the washroom and washed her hands. Thereafter, Sapna was asked to change her clothes and wear clothes of accused Rajni Singh, which were handed over to her. Sapna went inside another room to change her clothes and the door of the room might not have been fully closed. DW-1 stated that there was a pet dog belonging to him and accused Rajni Singh, whose muzzle/collar was loose. The dog suddenly entered the room where Sapna was changing clothes. He heard Sapna shouting and immediately rushed to the room along with accused Rajni Singh, Akash and Ritika. He found Sapna standing with her hand on the handle of an almirah and she had already been bitten by the pet dog. The dog was immediately removed from the room.
39. He further stated that Bunty, a friend of accused Rajni Singh, was residing adjacent to their rented house. His car was taken and Sapna was taken to Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital by him, accused Rajni Singh and Akash, while Moni and Ritika remained at the house. He stated that rabies injection was not available at Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital and therefore Sapna Page no. 17 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, Sapna was taken to Safdarjung Hospital. While at Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, Sapna made a phone call to her daughter and son, and accused Rajni Singh also contacted them. When they were about to leave for Safdarjung Hospital, Sapna's daughter and son reached Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital. Thereafter, Akash and accused Rajni Singh took Sapna to Safdarjung Hospital, while he returned to the house. He stated that he did not know anything further about the incident.
40. He identified accused Rajni Singh in court. In his cross- examination, he stated that the rented house was a 2-BHK house with two bedrooms, one hall, one kitchen, one attached bathroom and one common bathroom, with a monthly rent of approximately Rs. 14,000-15,000/-, which was being paid by accused Rajni Singh. He volunteered that he and Akash were working for accused Rajni Singh. He stated that accused Rajni Singh was running a body spa at Corner Market, Malviya Nagar, and he and Akash were working there as tele-callers, receiving a salary of about Rs. 20,000/- per month in cash. He further stated that several boys and girls used to work at the spa to provide massage services to customers.
41. He stated that accused Rajni Singh belonged to a village situated about four kilometres from his native village in Kanpur and that he had come in contact with her either through Facebook or through an introduction by an acquaintance. He stated that he came to Delhi around December 2018 to work with accused Rajni Singh and left the job when the Covid-19 pandemic started. Page no. 18 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 He further deposed that Sapna came to the spa of accused Rajni Singh around February 2020 seeking a job and was assigned duties of sanitation and preparing tea. He stated that Sapna worked for about 20 days and that he was not sure whether she was paid salary. He further stated that Sapna used to reside in a rented jhuggi behind the area of Malviya Nagar. According to him, during the period when accused Rajni Singh had gone to her native village in Kanpur for about 10-12 days at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, Sapna visited the rented house on 3-4 Samar vishal occasions seeking employment, but was refused as the spa was Digitally signed by Samar vishal closed. After accused Rajni Singh returned to Delhi, Sapna Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:30 +0530 visited the rented house on the day of the incident.
42. DW-1 further stated that Sapna lodged a complaint against accused Rajni Singh after about 20 days of the incident and that accused Rajni Singh had borne the expenses of medicines and fruit juice for Sapna. He stated that the pet dog was properly vaccinated and that the dog medical book was handed over to the police. The original dog medical book was shown to the witness, which he identified as Ex. DW1/DA, stating that the dog's name was Tiger and the owner's name was Rajni Singh. He also identified a photograph of the dog, Ex. PW2/B, stating that it was the same dog which had bitten Sapna. DW-1 stated that he was presently residing in Kanpur but could not produce documentary proof of residence or travel. He denied the suggestion that he was still residing in Delhi with accused Rajni Singh or that they were still running a body spa, stating voluntarily that accused Rajni Singh was now running an NGO, though he did not know its Page no. 19 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 details. He stated that he was unable to tell the exact date of the incident but maintained that it occurred in March 2020 and denied the suggestion that it took place on 11.06.2020.
43. He further stated that at the time when Sapna was bitten by the dog, Moni was present in the kitchen cooking, while he, accused Rajni Singh, Akash and Ritika were present in the hall. He stated that police had visited the house 1-2 times and made inquiries from him. He denied knowledge of any dispute regarding payment of salary to Sapna or of any demand made by Sapna. He denied the suggestion that the dog attacked Sapna at the instigation of accused Rajni Singh, stating that the dog had entered the room on its own. He also denied that he was deposing falsely or that he had been tutored by accused Rajni Singh to save her from prosecution. However one important thing he said in his cross examination is that the dog was unleashed and it went on its own in the room of Sapna. All the neighbours were afraid of that dog--Dog khula hua tha aur wo apne aap se Sapna wale room mein chala gaya, us dog se mohalle ke saare log darte the"
44. The second defence witness DW-2 Akash deposed on oath that on the date of the incident, i.e. 11.06.2020, he was present in a flat at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, along with accused Rajani Singh, Moni, Chandan and Ritika. He stated that he and Chandan were residing in the same flat with the accused. At around 4:00- 4:15 PM, while some of them were having tea and snacks and Moni was cooking in the kitchen, a lady (later identified as Sapna) was present in one of the rooms. According to the Page no. 20 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 witness, he did not know when or how the said lady entered the flat. Upon hearing noise, all of them rushed to the room and found that the lady was being bitten by a dog. He stated that accused Rajani immediately covered the face of the lady with a towel, after which they took her outside and made efforts to arrange transportation to take her to the hospital. As they could not find an auto-rickshaw, they borrowed a car from their neighbour Bunty, and he drove the injured to a government hospital in Malviya Nagar, from where she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. He further deposed that at Safdarjung Hospital her OPD card was prepared, she was taken to the surgery department, and her son and daughter reached the hospital during this time. After her surgery, they purchased medicines from a nearby medical store, and accused Rajani gave some money to the injured for juice and diet. Thereafter, they dropped her and her children near her house and returned to the flat. He correctly identified accused Rajani Singh during his testimony.
Samar vishal 45. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, DW-2 stated Digitally signed by Samar vishal that he is a resident of Kanpur and had come to Delhi for work Date: before the COVID period. He claimed to be working as a 2026.01.24 16:34:40 +0530 personal security officer but admitted that he had no documentary proof and that he received his salary in cash. He stated that he worked and stayed with accused Rajani for about one year during the COVID period and that she was running a spa centre in Malviya Nagar. He identified the injured as Sapna, who, according to him, had worked as a cleaner in the spa centre Page no. 21 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 for about one month, though he expressed ignorance about her salary or any dues. He stated that accused Rajani had gone to Azamgarh prior to the lockdown and had returned to Delhi a few days before the incident, and that during her absence he and Chandan stayed in her flat. He denied knowledge of who informed Sapna about Rajani's return and denied suggestions that Sapna had visited the flat earlier to demand salary dues. He further stated that he could not say whether the main door of the flat was already open but asserted that none of them had gone to open the door for Sapna. He clarified that the dog belonged to Chandan and not to accused Rajani, and that it was usually kept unleashed. He maintained that before the dog attack, none of them had interacted with Sapna, as they were seated in the hall while she was in another room. He denied all suggestions of false implication, tutoring, manipulation, or fabrication of evidence and reiterated that he was present at the spot and had narrated the incident truthfully.
46. Now coming to the arguments advanced by both sides. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Ld. APP) for the State vehemently opposed the defence version and submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through cogent, consistent and reliable evidence. It was argued that the incident in question is not disputed inasmuch as the injured Sapna admittedly suffered dog bite injuries inside the flat where the accused and her associates were present. The defence witnesses themselves admit the presence of the injured in the flat and the occurrence of the dog attack, thereby lending Page no. 22 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 substantial corroboration to the prosecution version with respect to the place, time and manner of the incident.
47. The Ld. APP contended that the defence witnesses, particularly DW-2 Akash, are highly interested and partisan witnesses, being admittedly closely associated with the accused. DW-2 has categorically stated that he lived and worked with the accused for about one year, stayed in her flat, and was dependent upon her for his livelihood during the relevant period. Such a witness, it was argued, has a clear motive to depose in favour of the accused and to shield her from criminal liability.
48. It was further argued that the conduct of the accused after the incident, as projected by the defence, does not absolve her of criminal liability. Merely taking the injured to the hospital, arranging treatment, or giving some money does not wash away the offence once the negligent act resulting in injuries stands established. Post-incident conduct, howsoever sympathetic, cannot be a substitute for the legal duty of care which was breached by the accused.
49. The Ld. APP also pointed out material inconsistencies and improbabilities in the defence evidence. DW-2 claims to be a personal security officer but admits that he has no documents, no fixed employer record, and was paid in cash, which casts serious Samar vishal doubt on his credibility. His inability to state basic facts Digitally signed by Samar vishal regarding the injured's entry, the opening of the door, or prior Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:45 +0530 interactions further undermines his reliability as a witness. It was submitted that the prosecution evidence, including the testimony Page no. 23 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 of the injured and medical records, clearly establishes that the injuries were sustained due to a dog bite inside the accused's premises and that such injuries were the direct result of the negligent keeping of the dog. The defence witnesses have failed to probabilise any alternate version so as to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
50. The Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that the facts and circumstances of the present case clearly justify the invocation of Section 308 IPC. He stated that in the present case, the injured sustained serious dog bite injuries inside the premises under the control of the accused, as a direct consequence of the accused's act of keeping a ferocious dog unleashed in a confined residential flat, fully knowing the likelihood of grievous harm being caused to any person entering the premises. The Ld. APP contended that the accused had knowledge that allowing an unleashed dog to roam freely inside the house posed a grave and imminent danger to human life and bodily safety. Despite such knowledge, no preventive measures were taken, nor was any warning given, thereby exhibiting a reckless disregard for the consequences of her act. The nature of the attack, the vulnerability of the injured, and the fact that the injuries were serious enough to require surgery at Safdarjung Hospital, collectively demonstrate that the act was not a mere accident but one carried out with knowledge of its likely fatal consequences. It was argued that had timely medical intervention not been provided, the injuries may have resulted in death due to excessive bleeding, infection, or complications arising from the dog attack.
Page no. 24 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
51. The Ld. APP submitted that at the stage of consideration of culpability, it is not necessary that death should actually occur; what is material is the intention or knowledge attributable to the accused at the time of commission of the act and the surrounding circumstances. Accordingly, the Ld. APP argued that the prosecution has successfully established the ingredients of Section 308 IPC, and the accused is liable to be convicted thereunder in addition to the other offences proved on record.
52. In conclusion, the Ld. APP argued that the defence evidence is an afterthought, concocted to create confusion and shield the accused. The prosecution has proved all essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused cannot escape liability merely by shifting the blame onto another person or by projecting a false and improbable defence. The Ld. APP therefore prayed that the accused be held guilty and be convicted in accordance with law.
53. On the other hand, the learned Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution case is false and does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It was submitted that the conduct of the accused clearly demonstrates her bonafides, as it was the accused herself who immediately arranged medical treatment for the injured. The injured was taken to a government Samar vishal hospital in Malviya Nagar by the accused herself. It was specifically argued that the phone number mentioned on the OPD Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: card of the injured belongs to the accused, which clearly falsifies 2026.01.24 16:34:52 +0530 the allegation of the complainant that no medical expenses were borne by the accused or that she was left to fend for herself. Page no. 25 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
54. The learned Defence Counsel further contended that the complainant is not a trustworthy or reliable witness. It was pointed out that in her complaint she claimed that she did not know how to approach the police or make a police complaint, whereas the record reveals that a police call was made on the very date of the incident. This contradiction, according to the defence, goes to the root of the matter and seriously dents the credibility of the complainant, rendering her testimony unsafe for reliance.
55. It was also argued that the investigation in the present case suffers from serious lapses. The site plan was not prepared in a fair and proper manner, as the investigating officer admittedly did not enter or inspect the interior of the house where the alleged incident actually took place. The delay in registration of FIR has also been agitated as one of the drawbacks in prosecution's case.
56. The learned Defence Counsel further relied upon the testimony of Moni, who is a prosecution witness present at the spot. It was submitted that her evidence demolishes the prosecution case, as she has nowhere stated that the accused provoked or instigated the dog to bite the complainant. Being a witness cited by the prosecution itself, her version carries equal evidentiary value and cannot be brushed aside merely because it does not support the prosecution case in its entirety. Samar vishal
57. Lastly, it was argued that even if the prosecution version is taken at its face value, no offence under Section 308 IPC is made Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 16:35:01 +0530 Page no. 26 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 out. The learned Defence Counsel submitted that there is no material on record to show any intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that her act was likely to cause death. On these grounds, the learned Defence Counsel prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
58. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence led in this case. The case is primarily based on the evidence of victim Sapna supported by medical evidence. She is the victim as well as eye witnesses. A witness who has personally seen the occurrence of the incident under inquiry is regarded as an eyewitness. The testimony of an eyewitness, if found to be credible and trustworthy, carries significant evidentiary value and cannot be discarded without cogent reasons. It is well settled that a conviction can be sustained on the basis of the sole testimony of a victim or an eyewitness, provided it inspires full confidence of the court. However, if the testimony is found to be partly unreliable or doubtful, the court may prudently seek independent corroboration to ensure the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
59. Eyewitnesses play an important role in the criminal justice system. The quality of evidence of an eyewitness depends on many factors prominent among them are his view in which the crime is committed, his confidence with respect to the accuracy of the description of the crime and identification of the accused and his description, the amount of attention the witness paid to the crime during its occurrence, the probability of the witness being present at the place of incident, the accuracy and probability of what he is defining etc. The law related to the Page no. 27 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 appreciation of evidence of eyewitnesses is completely settled that generally the testimony of injured and eyewitness of the incident is considered credible unless and until it is specifically shown or proved to have a taint for any reason on which it is assailed. Generally, the courts tend to believe what the eyewitnesses depose in the court and it is only when there exists grave and material discrepancies and contradictions in their statements which compels the court to think and doubt that whether the eyewitness is giving a truthful account, it can come in the domain of suspicion. When the tenacity and doggedness of the eyewitness is suspicious, when the truthfulness of the testimony of the eyewitness is shrouded in grave clouds of suspicion and falsity, the court may disbelieve that witness or may look for such corroboration of his evidence which are capable of removing the blemish from his evidence. However, the contradictions and omissions which are not material regards Samar vishal being to the facts of the case, those can be overlooked. The Digitally signed by Samar vishal testimony of a victim of an offence also stands on the same Date:
2026.01.24 footing. In Ganesan Vs. State (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Hon'ble 16:34:57 +0530 Supreme Court held that the sole testimony of the victim, if found worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused.
60. In Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 256, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness Page no. 28 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non- discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
61. In Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the legal position that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.
62. Further, in case of State v. Saravanan, AIR 2009 SC 152, it was held that the court can overlook minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, AIR 2010 SC 3071, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that it is the duty of the court Page no. 29 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 to separate falsehood from the truth, in sifting the evidence. At the same time, the eye-witness testimony must be credible and reliable. It should not be contradicted by other eyewitnesses or by the medical and forensic evidence, if any.
63. In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 3352, Hon'ble Supreme court reiterated the law laid down in its previous judgements and observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye- witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable Samar evidence. The Court shall have to bear in mind that different vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.24 16:35:08 witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas +0530 some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact, it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not failing within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.
Page no. 30 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
64. Now with these legal parameters regarding appreciation of evidence of victim and eyewitness and on the basis of above factual, I have undertaken a careful evaluation of the entire material placed on record, guided by the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. I am also conscious of the fact that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is always on the prosecution and it never shifts and to secure a conviction, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. Though it is neither possible nor prudent to have a straight-jacket formula or principle which would apply to all cases without variance and every case has to be appreciated on its own facts and in light of the evidence led by the parties. It is for the court to examine the cumulative effect of the evidence in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
65. Turning to the oral evidence, PW-1 Sapna is a natural, competent and primary witness to the incident. She is the victim in the present case and, as discussed herein-above, the testimony of a victim of an offence occupies a special status in law and is entitled to great weight. It is an admitted position that the complainant Sapna and the accused were known to each other and that the complainant had worked with the accused. The deposition of the complainant is clear, cogent and consistent on the material aspect that she was bitten by the dog kept by the accused. Significantly, the factum of dog bite is not disputed and stands admitted by the accused herself. The fact that the dog Page no. 31 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 belonged to accused is also not disputed and in-fact the defence witness DW-1 Dhirendra Singh @ Chandan has said that the dog's name was Tiger and the owner's name was Rajni Singh. He also identified a photograph of the dog, Ex. PW2/B, stating that it was the same dog which had bitten Sapna. As to the ownership of the premises he said that the flat where the incident took place was a 2-BHK house, with a monthly rent of approximately Rs. 14,000-15,000/-, which was being paid by accused Rajni Singh.
66. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of a truthful, reliable and trustworthy witness does not require mechanical or independent corroboration in order to be acted upon. Conviction can safely be based on the sole testimony of such a witness, particularly when the witness is the victim of the offence, unless the Court finds compelling reasons to doubt her credibility.
67. In the present case, merely because prosecution witness Moni did not fully support the version of the prosecution, the evidence of the complainant cannot be discarded on that ground alone. The complainant is an injured witness, and the law accords a higher degree of credibility to the testimony of an injured witness, as her presence at the spot is natural and her injuries provide an in-built guarantee of truthfulness. Her evidence is Samar clear, cogent and consistent on the core aspect of the incident, vishal namely that she was bitten by the dog inside the premises of the Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: accused, which fact is otherwise also admitted by the accused.
2026.01.24 16:35:14 +0530Page no. 32 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
68. It is equally well settled that the prosecution is not required to prove its case by a plurality of witnesses. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Even if a witness turns hostile or does not fully support the prosecution case, the testimony of another reliable witness does not become unreliable by default. The Court is required to separate the grain from the chaff and assess whether the evidence of the injured witness inspires confidence and is corroborated by surrounding circumstances and medical evidence.
69. In the present case, the testimony of the complainant stands amply corroborated by unimpeachable medical evidence, including the opinion of the Medical Board of AIIMS, which conclusively establishes the nature, seat and severity of the injuries. Therefore, the absence of corroboration from Moni's testimony does not create any dent in the prosecution case, nor does it render the complainant's testimony unreliable. Accordingly, the evidence of the complainant does not suffer from any infirmity merely because PW Moni did not fully support the prosecution version, and the same can safely be relied upon to record a finding of guilt against the accused.
70. In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 614 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that courts may lawfully act on the testimony of a single witness if it is found credible, as Section 134 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that no particular number of witnesses is required for proving any fact. The Hon'ble Court emphasised that evidence must be weighed, not counted, and rejected the notion that plurality of witnesses is Page no. 33 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 necessary even in serious offences like murder. Corroboration is not mandatory unless required by statute or demanded as a rule of prudence--for example, in the case of child witnesses, accomplices, or other inherently suspect testimony. Whether corroboration is needed depends upon the facts of each case and the judicial discretion of the presiding judge. The Hon'ble Court explained that oral testimony falls into three categories: (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category, conviction or acquittal may be safely based on a single witness; in the second, the evidence must be rejected outright; and in the third, the court must look for material corroboration. The Court warned that insisting on multiple witnesses would indirectly encourage fabrication, since many crimes occur in the presence of only one person.
71. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that conviction can be safely founded on the sole testimony of the victim if it is trustworthy, coherent, and intrinsically consistent, as in the present case. The complainant in the present case is a wholly reliable witness and therefore her sole testimony is sufficient to come to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused.
72. The version of PW-1 further finds strong corroboration from the medical evidence on record, particularly the opinion of the Medical Board of AIIMS. As per the Medical Board report, Samar vishal the complainant sustained the following injuries:
Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 16:35:24 +0530Page no. 34 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 (1). A crescentic scar due to recent healing of a wound, measuring 1 cm x 0.1 cm with convexity towards outwards is present on right cheek, 3 cm away from ala of nose and 1.2 cm below margin of lower eyelid.
(2). A scar due to recent healing of a wound measuring 0.6 cm x 0.1 cm is present on right cheek, 0.3 cm medial to injury number
1.
(3). A scar due to recent healing of a surgically sutured lacerated wound, curvilinear in shape, measuring 4 cm x 0.1 cm-0.2 cm with six identifiable surgical suture marks is present on right cheek with its medial end touching the ala of nose. Lower edge of wound is swollen. Tenderness is present over an area of 5 cm x 3 cm around the wound.
(4). A scar due to recent healing of surgically sutured lacerated wound of size 1.7 cm x 0.1 cm is present over nasal base involving medial aspect of front of nasal septum, crossing midline with two identifiable surgical suture marks. Tenderness is present at areas around the wound.
(5). A scar due to recent healing of a wound, measuring 0.4 cm x 0.1 cm is present on right cheek, at the level and 02 cm away from angle of mouth.
Page no. 35 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 (6). Right lower canine and lateral incisor teeth are not present. Wound bed of a recently fractured right lower lateral incisor is present with inflammatory changes.
(7). Fractures of tips of outer aspect of right upper canine and premolars are present.
(8). A scar due to recent healing of a wound, measuring 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm with a black in situ suture is present at upper neck region at midline, 3.5 cm below mentum.
73. The above injuries clearly establish that the victim suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disfigurement of the face. As per the opinion of the Medical Board of AIIMS, injuries Nos. 1 to 8 mentioned in the report (Ex. PW-2/A) could be sustained due to a dog bite. The Board further opined that injuries Nos. 1 to 5 resulted in permanent disfiguration of the face, injuries Nos. 6 and 7 involved fractures of teeth and were therefore grievous in nature, and injury No. 8 was a lacerated wound on the neck. The Medical Board specifically observed that the neck is a vital part of the body containing sensitive and superficially placed structures such as major blood vessels and the trachea, and injury to any of these structures could lead to fatal consequences. Accordingly, injury No. 8 was opined to be dangerous and life-threatening. In response to the specific query, the Medical Board categorically opined that injuries Nos. 1 to 8 could be sustained due to a dog bite and that a dog bite constitutes a dangerous means of causing injury. Thus, the ocular Page no. 36 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 testimony of PW-1 is fully corroborated by unimpeachable medical evidence, leaving no manner of doubt that the complainant suffered grievous and life-threatening injuries as a result of the dog bite incident.
74. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the biting of the dog kept by the accused was a mere accident, whether the dog was intentionally provoked by the accused to attack the complainant and whether by her conduct the accused can be imputed the knowledge that her act was so imminently dangerous as to be likely to cause the death of the victim. It also requires examination whether the conduct of the accused amounted to such negligence as would constitute an omission to take sufficient care with respect to an animal in her possession, so as to guard against probable danger to human life or the likelihood of grievous hurt being caused by the said dog.
75. As regards the allegation of intentional provocation of the dog by the accused, there are material variations in the version of the complainant. In her initial complaint Ex. PW-1/A, the complainant alleged that despite her repeated requests, the accused provoked her dog and caused it to attack her, using the words "mere baar baar mana karne par usne apne kutte ko lalkaara aur mere upar hamla karaya." However, in her deposition before the Court, the complainant stated that the accused left her alone in one room, unleashed (sic) the dog in that room, locked the room from outside, and thereafter went to her own room and locked herself inside. This version is further Page no. 37 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 diluted by the testimony of PW Moni, who categorically stated that the accused did not leave the dog in the room in the manner alleged by the complainant. The complainant herself, in her cross-examination, admitted that the accused did not directly set the dog upon her, but that the dog was left in the room in which she was present. These inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of the complainant do not inspire sufficient confidence to Samar conclusively hold that the accused intentionally provoked or vishal instigated the dog to bite the complainant.
Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.24 16:35:31
76. However, the absence of clear proof of intentional +0530 provocation does not, by itself, exonerate the accused from criminal liability. For bringing home a charge under Section 308 IPC, it is necessary to establish the existence of intention or knowledge, i.e. the requisite mens-rea. In the present case, even if the version of the complainant is taken at its lowest, it stands admitted that the accused voluntarily left the dog in the room where the complainant was present. The accused was admittedly aware that the complainant was not familiar to the dog and that the dog had the potential to attack or bite her. By leaving the dog unattended in close proximity to the complainant, the accused can reasonably be imputed with the knowledge that such an act was likely to result in a dog attack and that the injuries caused thereby could be of a serious and dangerous nature. And the dog in-fact attacked the complainant and caused life threatening injuries.
Page no. 38 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
77. In view of the nature, seat and severity of injuries suffered by the complainant--particularly the life-threatening injury on the neck, a vital part of the body--the act of leaving the dog in the room with the complainant can be said to be so imminently dangerous that it was likely to cause such bodily injury as could result in death. Therefore, even in the absence of clear proof of intention, the accused can be attributed with the requisite knowledge that her act was likely to cause the death of the complainant. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement of knowledge under Section 308 IPC stands satisfied.
78. One more fact of importance is that at the relevant time there were four to five other persons present in the house and yet the dog did not attack any one of them, except the complainant, is a circumstance which cannot be brushed aside lightly. This fact does indicate, to some extent, that the incident was not a random or wholly uncontrolled act of the animal. There is no evidence that the dog was familiar with the other occupants of the house, whereas the complainant was either unfamiliar to the dog or was placed in a situation where the dog perceived her as a threat or a target.
79. This circumstance lends support to the inference that the complainant was left alone in circumstances which exposed her to a foreseeable and specific risk of attack. When a person keeps a dog within a confined residential space and knowingly leaves an unfamiliar person alone with the animal, while others remain Page no. 39 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 safe, it suggests a conscious act or, at the very least, a deliberate disregard of an obvious and imminent danger. It supports the prosecution case that the accused either anticipated or ought to have anticipated that the dog would attack the complainant, and yet failed to take preventive measures. In the totality of the circumstances, this selective targeting of the complainant by the dog becomes a relevant factor in assessing the mental element attributable to the accused and in drawing an adverse inference regarding her conduct at the time of the incident.
80. Section 308 IPC deals with an act done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death had been caused by that act, the offence would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For attracting the said provision, it is not necessary that death should actually occur; what is required is the existence of intention or knowledge attributable to the accused at the time of commission of the act, coupled with the dangerous nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances.
81. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the complainant/victim Sapna sustained dog bite injuries inside the residential premises of the accused. The presence of the complainant in the house, the presence of the accused and her Samar vishal dog therein, and the factum of dog bite are not disputed by the Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 accused. The testimony of PW-1 Sapna, who is the injured 16:35:36 +0530 witness, is natural and trustworthy to the extent that she suffered Page no. 40 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 injuries due to the dog kept in the house of the accused. Her testimony stands amply corroborated by the medical evidence, particularly the opinion of the Medical Board of AIIMS (Ex. PW-2/A).
82. The Medical Board has opined that the victim suffered multiple injuries on her face, teeth and neck, resulting in permanent disfiguration of the face and fractures of teeth, which are grievous in nature. Injury No. 8, located on the neck, has been categorically opined to be dangerous and life-threatening, as the neck is a vital part containing superficially placed major blood vessels and the trachea, injury to which could lead to fatal consequences. The Board further opined that all the injuries could be caused by a dog bite and that a dog bite constitutes a dangerous means of causing injury.
83. Although the evidence on record does not conclusively establish that the accused intentionally provoked or instigated the dog to attack the complainant, the material on record clearly shows that the accused voluntarily left the dog in close proximity to the complainant, who was not familiar to the animal. The complainant has said in evidence that the accused locked the room in which she was present with the dog. The accused was fully aware of the presence of the complainant in the room and of the temperament and potential of the dog. According to defence witness Chandan the dog was unleashed and it went on its own in the room of Sapna and it was ferocious that all the neighbours were afraid of that dog. By leaving the dog unattended with the Page no. 41 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 complainant, the accused exposed her to a grave and imminent risk of serious harm.
84. In such circumstances, the accused can safely be imputed with the knowledge that her act was so imminently dangerous that it was likely to cause such bodily injury as could result in death. The fact that the victim survived due to timely medical intervention does not dilute the gravity of the act. The subsequent conduct of the accused in taking the injured to the hospital, though relevant for mitigation at the stage of sentence, does not negate the existence of the requisite knowledge at the time of the incident.
85. Accordingly, I hold that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an act with the requisite knowledge contemplated under Section 308 IPC. The accused is, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC.
86. The second charge against used is under Section 289 IPC which punishes any person who knowingly or negligently omits to take sufficient order with any animal in his or her possession, so as to guard against any probable danger to human life or any probable danger of grievous hurt. In the present case, it stands proved that the dog was kept within the residential premises of the accused and that the accused exercised control over the said Samar premises. The evidence of defence witnesses DW2 itself reveals vishal Digitally signed that the dog was usually kept unleashed. by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 16:35:41 +0530 Page no. 42 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
87. The complainant, who was a known person to the accused and had earlier worked with her, entered the house, and the accused failed to take sufficient precautions to ensure that the dog did not come into contact with her. Such conduct clearly amounts to a negligent omission to take sufficient order with an animal in her possession or under her control. The very purpose of Section 289 IPC is to penalise such negligent conduct which exposes others to the risk of grievous injury or danger to life.
88. The injuries actually suffered by the complainant-- grievous, permanently disfiguring and life-threatening--amply demonstrate the probable danger which the accused failed to guard against. Thus, all the essential ingredients of Section 289 IPC stand fully satisfied. Accordingly, the accused is also held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 289 IPC.
89. As regards the charge under Section 509 IPC, the prosecution was required to establish that the accused, intending to insult the modesty of the complainant, uttered any word, made any sound or gesture, or exhibited any object, or intruded upon the privacy of the complainant. The essence of the offence under Section 509 IPC is the intention to outrage or insult the modesty of a woman, which must be clearly borne out from the evidence on record.
90. The complainant has alleged that the accused said to her that the money would be given if she do something in return and Page no. 43 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 that she had to do wrong and immoral things. The accused asked her to have sex with persons who used to visit her house.
91. I have examined this allegation in the light of the entire evidence on record. The law mandates that allegations of this nature must be proved by clear, cogent and reliable evidence and, as far as possible, with a description of the actual words allegedly spoken or, at the very least, with credible proof of the gesture, conduct or act complained of. Courts are required to be particularly circumspect while dealing with such allegations.
92. In the present case, except for a bald assertion made by the complainant, there is no specific, detailed or consistent clear evidence to substantiate this allegation. The complainant has not stated the specific words used by the accused. It is also relevant to note that this allegation appears to be unconnected with the immediate incident of dog bite and surfaced in the backdrop of an existing wages related dispute between the parties (Although the accused has admitted in her statement under section 313 CrPC that some wages of complainant were due). While such a factor by itself is not decisive, it does require to scrutinise the allegation with greater caution. Criminal liability, particularly under provisions relating to modesty and sexual dignity of a woman, cannot be fastened on the basis of sweeping and general allegations.
Samar vishal 93. Accordingly, I am of the view that charge under section Digitally signed by Samar vishal 509 IPC is not proved in the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Date: 2026.01.24 16:35:47 +0530Page no. 44 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
94. As regards the delay in lodging the complaint, it is well settled that delay in itself is not fatal to the prosecution case, provided the same is satisfactorily explained and the overall evidence inspires confidence. The Court is required to examine whether the delay has resulted in embellishment, concoction or false implication, or whether it stands justified by the attending circumstances.
95. In the present case, the material on record clearly establishes that the injured was not only grievously hurt but had also suffered life-threatening injuries. The medical evidence shows that she sustained multiple dog bite injuries on her face, teeth and neck, resulting in permanent disfigurement, fractures of teeth and a dangerous injury on a vital part of the body. Immediately after the incident, the injured was taken from one hospital to another and ultimately underwent surgical treatment. In such circumstances, the natural and immediate concern of the injured was her survival, medical treatment and recovery, rather than rushing to the police station to lodge a formal complaint.
96. The injured is also a poor woman, with limited means and resources, and cannot be expected to be fully conversant with legal procedures or the formalities of criminal law. For such a victim, particularly one who is severely injured and hospitalised, some delay in approaching the police is not only understandable but inevitable. The law does not expect a victim in pain, trauma and distress to act with promptitude and precision as if she were in a position of comfort and security.
Page no. 45 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
97. Moreover, the delay in the present case stands sufficiently explained and does not cast any shadow of doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. The core incident, namely the dog bite causing grievous and life-threatening injuries to the complainant, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt through the unimpeached testimony of the injured and the strong corroboration provided by medical evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was used as an opportunity for deliberation, fabrication or false implication.
98. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when the prosecution version is otherwise trustworthy, consistent and duly corroborated, the case should not be allowed to fail merely on technical grounds such as delay in lodging the complaint. Courts are required to adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims. In the facts of the present case, the delay is fully justified by the severity of the injuries, the socio-economic condition of the victim and the circumstances under which she was placed, and therefore the same does not in any manner weaken or vitiate the prosecution case.
99. Accordingly, the delay in reporting the incident does not enure to the benefit of the accused and cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case when the offence itself stands proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of reliable and cogent evidence.
Page no. 46 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
100. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, I hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused Rajni is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 308 and 289 of the Indian Penal Code.
Digitally
signed by
Samar Samar vishal
Date:
vishal 2026.01.24
16:35:55
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Samar Vishal)
on 24.01.2026 ASJ-02/South District
Saket / New Delhi
24.01.2026
Page no. 47 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 APPENDIX
1. Chart of Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution Prosecutio Name of Witness Description n Witnesses No. 1 Ms. Sapna Complainant 2 Dr. Abhishek Mishra Medical Witness 3 Dr. Rajendra Meena Medical Witness 4 Ms. Moni @ Sulekha Eye witness Sarkar 5 W ASI Manisha Police witness 6 SI Ram Singh Duty Officer/police witness 7 ASI Sunil Kumar 1st Investigating Officer 8 SI Krishan Kumar 2nd Investigating Officer Samar vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 16:36:00 +0530 Page no. 48 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
2.Chart for Exhibited Documents Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by / Attested Exhibit by Ex.PW1/A Complaint Complainant/PW1 Ex.PW1/B Photographs of dog Complainant/PW1 Ex.PW2/A Medical Board Dr. Abhishek Opinion Yadav/PW2 Ex.PW3/A MLC no.4440/2020 Dr. Rajendra dated 03.07.2020 Meena/PW3 Ex.PW3/B Authorization letter Dr. Rajendra Meena/PW3 Ex.PW4/DA Statement under Ms. Moni @ section 161 Cr.P.C Sulekha Sarkar/PW4 Ex.PW5/A Arrest memo W SI Manish/PW5 Ex.PW5/B Personal search W SI Manisha/PW5 memo Ex.PW5/C Seizure memo of W SI Manisha/PW5 one book Ex.PW6/A Computerized copy SI Ram Singh/PW6 of FIR Ex.PW6/B Endorsement on SI Ram Singh/PW6 rukka Ex.PW6/C Certificate under SI Ram Singh/PW6 section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW7/A Site plan ASI Sunil Kumar/PW7 Ex.PW8/A Seizure memo of SI Krishan medical documents Kumar /PW8 Page no. 49 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022
3. Chart of Material Objects Exhibited In Evidence Material Object No. Description of the Proved by /Attested Exhibit by 1 Dog vaccination Dhirendra Singh @ book Ex.DW1/DA Chandan DW1 Samar vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 16:36:03 +0530 Page no. 50 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022 Specimen Chart for Defence Witnesses Examined Defence Name of Witness Description Witnesses No. 1 Dhirendra Singh @ Eye Witness Chandan 2 Akash Eye Witness Certified that this judgment including appendix Samar contains 51 pages and each page bears my signatures. vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.24 16:36:09 +0530 (Samar Vishal) ASJ-02/South District Saket / New Delhi 24.01.2026 Page no. 51 of 51 State Vs. Rajani Singh FIR no.282/2020 PS Malviya Nagar SC No. 220/2022