Delhi District Court
State vs Jogender Singh Etc on 20 December, 2025
DLWT020009262012
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06,
DISTRICT- WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. GAURAV SINGAL, D.J.S.
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 188/11
PS - Mundka
Under section 325/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID : 65031/16
2) The date of commission of offence : 01.09.2011
3) The name of the complainant : Kamlesh W/o
Devender Singh.
4) The name & parentage of accused : (i) Bhim Singh
S/o Sh. Bhan Singh
R/o H. No. 498, VPO,
Mundka, Delhi.
(ii) Praveen Devi
W/o Sh. Indal Singh
R/o VPO Mundka, Delhi.
5) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Sandeep Kumar.
6) Offence involved : 325/34 IPC
7) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order : Acquittal
9) Judgment reserved on : 11.11.2025
10) Judgment announced on : 20.12.2025
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 1 of 34
BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:
1. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 01.09.2011 at about 5:15 PM near House No. 395, Industry Village, Mundka, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS-Mundka, all the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, caused grievous hurt to Kamlesh and Jyoti, and caused hurt to Devender Singh by use of hockey stick and lathi. Thus, all the accused persons namely, Joginder Singh, Bala, Parveen Devi and Bhim Singh, committed offence under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC).
2. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed. The cognizance was taken against the offence on 26.09.2012 and accordingly, they were summoned. Compliance of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C) was done by providing a copy of the charge-sheet and annexed documents to the accused persons.
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against all the accused persons, a formal charge for the offence punishable under section 325/34 of IPC, vide order dated 26.10.2013, was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Proceedings against accused Bala and Joginder Singh were compounded vide order dated 22.08.2019.
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 2 of 34 EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION:
5. To substantiate the allegations, the prosecution has examined 05 (five) witnesses.
(i) PW-1 Kamlesh deposed that on 01.09.2011, at about 5.00 to 5.15 PM, her daughter namely Jyoti was going to take goods from the grocery shop. She did not return to the house for five minutes as the said shop was very near to the house. After that, PW-1 went outside her house and saw that in her gali after 6/7 houses from her house, the accused persons namely Bala, Bhim Singh and Joginder, were beating her daughter. The accused Parveen had caught hold of her daughter and other accused were beating her daughter by lathi and hockey stick. PW-1 rushed to the place for saving her daughter. Then, the accused persons thrown her daughter in nearby nali and started beating PW-1 with lathi and hockey stick. For two minutes, PW-1 got unconscious and after that her husband came on the spot. Her husband tried to save them. Accused persons also beat him by the same weapon. PW-1 sustained injuries on her head, shoulder, back and other parts of the body. Her daughter and her husband also received injuries. Her husband called on 100 number. Meanwhile, accused persons fled from the spot. PCR came at the spot. They were taken to SGM Hospital, Delhi. IO recorded statement of PW-1 at her house, which is Ex. PW1/A. PW-1 correctly identified the accused persons namely Bala, Bhim Singh and Joginder correctly. Identity of accused Parveen not disputed by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(ii) PW-2 Devender Singh deposed that on 01.09.2011, he was State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 3 of 34 present at his house and at about 5.00 to 5.15 PM, he heard quarrel like noise in his gali. He came out from his house and saw that at the distance of about 6/7 houses from his house, the accused persons namely Bala, Bhim Singh and Joginder, were beating his daughter and his wife was lying on the ground in injured condition. Blood was oozing from the head of his wife and his daughter was also injured. His daughter was weeping and crying. He called on 100 number. Meanwhile, accused persons fled from the spot. PCR came at the spot. They were taken to the SGM Hospital, Delhi. He received injuries on his waist and his leg. IO recorded his statement. PW-2 had shown the place of incident to the IO. PW-2 correctly identified the accused persons namely Bala, Bhim Singh and Joginder. Identity of accused Parveen not disputed by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(iii)PW-3 Jyoti deposed that on 01.09.2011, she was residing alongwith her parents at H.No.395, Near Saheed Bhagat Singh Park, Mundka. On that day at about 05-05:15 PM, she was going to general store shop outside the gali for purchase of sugar. When she reached in between the gali, her aunty (tai namely Parveen) and her uncle namely Bhim were standing in the gali who were residing in the same gali. Identity of accused Bhim and Parveen Devi is not disputed by Ld. Defence counsel. When she was passing through the gali, Parveen and Bhim came to her and caught hold of her. Accused Parveen pushed her hand on mouth of PW-3 and accused Bhim caught hold from back side and pushed her breast. Thereafter, accused Joginder cousin brother of PW-3 and Bala i.e. wife of Joginder came there and started beating PW-3. PW-3 correctly identified accused Joginder and Bala.
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 4 of 34 They forced to put PW-3 in the car. She resisted and thereafter, both started beating PW-3 with danda-lathi. PW-3 further reiterated the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. There was dispute between father of PW-3 and accused persons regarding plot. The locality people came there and accused persons fled away from the spot. PW-3 sustained injury on her left hand. Her mother and father also sustained injury. PW-3 was discharged from the hospital after putting plaster on her left hand. Statement of PW-3 was recorded.
(iv) PW-4 Retd. SI Ram Chander deposed that on 01.09.2011, he was posted as SI at PS Mundka. On that day he was on emergency duty and received DD entry no. 22A. Upon receiving the same, PW-4 reached at village Mundka, whereupon he got to know that the injured had already been taken to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Thereafter, PW-4 reached to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Where injured persons namely Devender, Kamlesh and Jyoti found under treatment and their MLCs were incomplete. Due to which, PW-4 kept the DD entry no. 22A pending. Thereafter on 05.09.2011, PW-4 have recorded the statement of injured Kamlesh which is placed on record already Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter on 20.10.2011, PW-4 received the MLC of injured Jyoti on which the nature of injuries were mentioned grievous. Thereafter, PW-4 prepared the tehrir on the complaint of Kamlesh as per the MLC result of the injured. The said rukka/tehrir which is Ex.PW4/A and got registered the FIR in the present case through DO Darpesh. The copy of the FIR is Ex.PW4/B. Thereafter, PW-4 had visited the spot and got prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW4/C. Thereafter on 20.10.2011 itself PW-4 have recorded the State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 5 of 34 supplementary statement of complainant Kamlesh, Injured Jyoti and Devender U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, at the instance of complainant, PW-4 have arrested Joginder Singh vide the arrest memo which is Ex.PW4/D. The present case had already been compounded against accused Joginder. Thereafter, PW-4 had arrested the other accused persons namely Bhim Singh, Praveen and Bala by arrest memo Ex. PW4/E to G. PW-4 had released the accused persons after furnishing their bail bond. Thereafter, he had prepared the charge-sheet. PW-4 correctly identified accused Praveen Devi.
(v) PW-5 Dr. Chander Prakash Meena deposed that Dr. Manoj Dhingra was deputed as the Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, SGM Hospital to identify the signature of Dr. Manoj Dhingra who had already expired in 2018-19 due to chronic illness. Dr. Manoj Dhingra gave the opinion regarding the injuries mentioned in MLC No. 13473 dated 01.09.2011 and MLC No. 13471 dated 01.09.2011. The same is Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B. He identified the signature of Dr. Manoj Dhingra because they were working in the same hospital. The signature of Dr. Manoj Dhingra is at point A on both the MLCs.
6. After the examination of all the witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and the statements of the accused, Bhim Singh and Praveen Devi, were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 30.06.2025, wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them. The accused Bhim Singh and Praveen Devi pleaded innocence and false implication and, they opted not to lead any defence evidence.
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 6 of 34
7. Final arguments were led on behalf of both parties. Written submissions were filed by the accused persons.
7.1 The learned assistant public prosecutor for the state has argued that on a combined reading of the prosecution witness offence punishable under section 325 of IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
7.2 On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the accused persons have argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is, further, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
8. Submissions have been considered and record of case has been carefully perused.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW:
9. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer to relevant provisions of law.
9.1 Section 325 of IPC:- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 7 of 34 liable to fine.
9.2 Section 320 of IPC:- Grievous Hurt.
The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":
1. Emasculation.
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4. Privation of any member or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
9.3 Section 322 of IPC:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.--
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt".
9.4 Burden of proof: - It is a well establish principle of criminal law that initial onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 8 of 34 beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may' have to 'must' have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, then, the benefit of doubt necessarily must go to the accused. The principle is rooted in the maxim that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the obligation on the part of the prosecution, to establish unbroken link between the chain of events/circumstances and, to eliminate any reasonable doubt which might appear in the mind of a prudent man. The prosecution has the bounden duty to discharge the initial onus before it can shift on to the other party. The prosecution must stand on its own. It cannot rely on the weaknesses or absence of the defense's case to establish guilt.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
10. In the present case, the accused persons have been charged with the offence punishable under section 325/34 of IPC.
10.1 Before proceeding further, it is important to understand the jurisprudence relating to section 325 of IPC. A bare reading of the provision enshrined in section 322 of IPC clearly suggests that the person causing hurt must have the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt and the hurt which is caused in consequence must also be grievous in nature as defined in section 320 of IPC. It is not sufficient that the hurt which is caused is "grievous" if there is no prior intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt. Reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mushirkha Bashirkha Musalman vs State Of Maharashtra State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 9 of 34 1982 SCC Online Bom. 266 wherein while discussing the scope and applicability of section 325 of IPC, it held the following:
"The Judge is not to trouble himself with seeking for direct proof of what the offender thought was likely to happen, but is to infer the nature of his act, taking him to have intended grievous hurt, or at least to have contemplated grievous hurt as likely to occur, when he did what everybody knows is likely to cause grievous hurt, and the more certainly drawing this conclusion where there is evidence of previous enmity against the party who was suffered. If the act was such that nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensure from it, then although grievous may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be his duty to convict the offender of simple hurt only. A person can be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and the intention correspond, or when grievous hurt has been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, though it may be of a different kind. Though grievous hurt may be caused in an assault, it does not at all follow that the person who assaulted is guilty of causing grievous hurt under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. A person is only liable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code if he voluntarily cause grievous hurt and voluntarily causing hurt" according to section State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 10 of 34 322 means if he intends to cause grievous hurt or knew himself to be likely to cause such hurt."
10.2 The above mentioned ratio was reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rabari Varva Jesang vs State Of Gujarat 1984 SCC Online Guj. 68 wherein it was held that "Courts should not overlook the act itself. In considering the act not only the result but knowledge or intention is to be considered. If the act was such that nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensue from it, then, although grievous hurt may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be Court's duty to convict the offender of simple hurt, judging that grievous hurt was not in his contemplation; for, according to Section 322 of the Indian Penal Code, a person can be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and intention correspond or when grievous hurt had been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, though it may be of a different kind. In the instant case, from the act of the petitioner-accused intention of causing grievous hurt cannot be inferred. In view of this, the conviction of the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code requires to be set aside."
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 11 of 34 10.3 Hence, conjoint reading of the provision enshrined in section 325 of IPC and the above-mentioned decisions of the Honorable Courts enlightens that if the grievous hurt is caused to the victim due to the act of assailant, he can be convicted for causing grievous hurt u/s 325 of IPC only if he either intended to cause grievous hurt or had the knowledge (while doing the said act) that grievous hurt could be ordinarily caused. If intention/knowledge is missing, then, the accused cannot be convicted u/s 325 of IPC even if grievous hurt is caused due to his act. He can then be convicted for causing simple hurt punishable u/s 323 of IPC.
10.4 It is an admitted fact that there's a family dispute with the accused persons regarding partition of land. On this, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 886 of 2012 decided on 3rd March 2012 has held that if parties are on inimical terms, then each and every piece of evidence available on record has to be scrutinized and analyzed carefully.
11. The prosecution has examined three injured witnesses, i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW3.
11.1 PW3 has deposed that upon hearing her cry for help, PW1 came outside the house and tried to rescue her, but she was also beaten, by all the accused persons. Upon hearing all this, PW2 came to rescue them who was sitting outside the house of her tauji namely, Sh. Ramphal at the corner of the gali. He was beaten by the accused persons. On this, testimony of PW1 contradicts with the testimony of PW3 as well as her State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 12 of 34 statement in Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has deposed that when PW3 did not come back from the grocery shop then she went outside and saw that PW3 was being beaten by all the accused persons. Whereas, in Ex.PW1/A, she stated that when PW3 went into the gali towards the grocery shop then the accused person grabbed her and started beating her with the danda and hockey sticks. After seeing that she ran towards the accused persons to protect PW3. On this, PW3 deposed that after she raised the alarm for help, PW1 came outside.
11.2 Similarly, PW2 has deposed that upon hearing quarrels, he came out of his house and saw that the accused persons were beating his daughter/PW3 and his wife/PW1 was lying on the ground in injured condition, blood was coming from the head of PW1. He was beaten too. After that, he called the police from the phone of his neighbor as his phone was destroyed during the alleged incident. As far as the presence of PW2 at the place of incident is concerned, PW1 stated that PW2 went out for a walk near Shaheed Bhagat Singh Park at the corner of the gali, PW3 stated that PW2 was outside the home of tauji, Sh. Ramphal at the corner of the gali. Whereas, he states that he was in the house and, upon hearing noises, he went outside.
11.3 All the three eye-witnesses contradict each other on these preliminary aspects. However, this is not something which appears as a material contradiction that affects the case of the prosecution.
12. Further, PW3 in cross-examination has deposed that IO recorded her statement on two occasions. The first statement was at the PS, the State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 13 of 34 next day after the incident, which was not signed by her, the contents of the same were read over by PW2. The second statement was at her home after her mother was discharged from the hospital two days from the day of the incident, and it was recorded along-with PW1. She signed this statement at the instance of IO. She further deposed that some part of the statement was not recorded by the IO stating that it relates to family dispute. The second statement was tutored by the IO before it was recorded. Later, she retracted her deposition and stated that her statement was recorded only once in the investigation, either on 04.09.2011 or 05.09.2011 and that was recorded at the PS. She deposed that she does not remember the exact date when the statement of PW1 was recorded, but it was the next date of incident. Upon questioning by the defense counsel as to why she did not state this act of taking her into the vehicle earlier in her statement. She deposed because the same was not asked.
12.1 As far as the omission of the fact that the accused persons forced her to get into the car is concerned, especially when the incident was fresh in her mind, is not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. This omission exists not only in the statement u/s 161 of PW3, PW1 and PW2, but also in Ex. PW1/A, wherein only the alleged act of taking PW3 is mentioned (meri beti ko uthane ki koshish ki) . The alleged fact of forcing her into a vehicle is missing. This addition is appearing as an improvement which has been introduced after nearly eleven years. Also, she failed to answer the questions put by the accused on this aspect.
12.2 As far as the submission of selective recording and tutoring by IO is concerned, this aspect is fatal to the case of the prosecution as it strikes State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 14 of 34 at the root of the case. This takes away the element of truth from the testimony of the mentioned witness and puts a question on her credibility as she is appearing as a tutored witness.
12.3 Exaggerations do not make the evidence fragile. However, it can be one of the variables used to test the credibility of the prosecution version when all the evidence is placed in a crucible and tested against the credibility touchstone. Thus, mere marginal modifications in a witness's claims cannot be referred to as improvements because they may be elaborations of the witness's previous statement. The omissions that amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e. go to the root of the case/materially damage the trial or heart of the prosecution's case, render the witness' testimony discreditable. Reference may be made to Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.
12.4 PW2 deposed that his statement was recorded on the day of the incident and later stated that it was recorded either on 04.09.2011 or 05.09.2011. Statement of PW3 was also recorded in his presence. PW3 in cross-examination deposed that her statement was recorded on two occasions (reference to be drawn to paragraph 12). The statement of PW1 was recorded in his presence on 06.09.2011. Later, he stated that IO met him for the first time on 06.09.2011 and he recorded the statement of PW1 at their home in his presence as they were in the hospital from 01.09.2011 to 04.09.2011. PW1 stated that her statement was recorded only once on 04.09.2011 at home. The deposition of PW2 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 15 of 34 strikes at his credibility as a material witness and puts questions on the prosecution.
12.5 Taking into consideration the testimony of PW2 and PW3, the court finds that it invokes the rule of caution and raises a reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution. Contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in their testimony are of serious consequence.
12.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, time and again, guided by saying that in assessing the credibility of witness, the testimony must inspire confidence in the judicial mind, and omissions, improvements, or contradictions touching the core of the prosecution version inevitably undermine such assurance. Minor discrepancies are not fatal, but material improvements that go to the root of the matter essentially erode the credibility of the witness.
12.7 Reference may also be made to the recent judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Raj Kumar @ Bheema vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2025 INSC 1322, in which it is observed that, " 51. It is tried that the evidence of an eyewitness must be of sterling quality and unimpeachable character. It should not only inspire the confidence of the court but also be of such a nature that is acceptable at its face value."
12.8 In the case of State of "U.P. v. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324"
the principles with regard to appreciation of an injured witness was State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 16 of 34 propounded as below:− " 27. the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is genuinely considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lands support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would like or want to led his actual assailants go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection of his evidence."
12.9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvat Singh & ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2020 4 SCC 33, has observed that when the deposition of a material witness is full of material contradictions and improvements and when no independent witness supports the case, it becomes unsafe to base a conviction on such evidence. After looking at the testimony of these witnesses, material contradictions appear that put question on the version of the prosecution and raise serious doubts which go to the root of the case.
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 17 of 34
13. PW4 is the IO of the case and deposed on the aspect of the investigation. He deposed that upon receiving D.D. entry 22A, he went to the place of incident where he received the information that the injured persons were taken to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. He found PW1, PW2 and PW3 there getting treatment. And, on 05.09.2011, after recording the statement of PW1, he waited for the MLC of PW3 and on October 20, 2011, he received MLC in which it was stated that her injuries were grievous. On the same day, he prepared the rukka and registered the FIR and recorded the supplementary statement of PW1, PW2 and PW3 under section 161 of Cr.P.C..
13.1 In cross-examination, PW4 deposed that since MLC was not ready, he returned to the PS without making any enquiry. He conducted no enquiry on the spot. And, on 05.09.2011, he recorded the statement of PW1 in the presence of PW2. The statement of PW2 was also recorded on the said date. After that, he went to the spot and prepared the site plan. On 20.10.2011, he recorded the statement of PW3. He never inquired anything from the public witnesses.
13.2 As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, PW2 states that IO recorded his statement on the day of the incident and later stated that his statement was recorded either on 04.09.2011 or 05.09.2011. The statement of PW3 was also recorded in his presence. PW3, as already discussed, stated that her first statement was recorded on the day of the incident at the PS which was not signed by her, and the contents of the same were read by PW2. Her second statement was recorded in her home along with PW1 and in the presence of PW2 and the same was State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 18 of 34 tutored by IO. Also, IO has not recorded all the details stating that it was related to family dispute. Later, she retracted this deposition. PW2 further deposed that IO met him for the first time on 06.09.2011, and he recorded the statement on PW1 at home in his presence as they were in the hospital from 01.09.2011 to 04.09.2011. PW1 stated that her statement was recorded only once on 04.09.2011 at home. PW4 also testifies that no DD entry was made pertaining to the recording of the statement of the complainant/PW1. This goes to show that after the alleged incident only the statement of PW2 and PW3 was recorded and not of PW1. The version put forth by the prosecution appears to be questionable and has fatal flaws, This shakes the foundation of the case and raises doubt on the allegation made by the PW1 in Ex. PW1/A. 13.3 This invokes a rule of caution in the mind of the court. Reference may be made to the decision of The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Yogesh @ Bunty v. State NCT of Delhi, 2014 SCC Online Del 1042, has held that:-
"While defective investigation by itself is not a ground to quit, if such lapse create reasonable doubt about the prosecution version, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, particularly where no independent witnesses are examined and material witness is missing."
13.4 Reference may also be made to Hema v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 10 SCC 192, State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police v. N. Suresh Ranjan and Others 2014 11 SCC 709: 2014 3 SCC (Cri) 529 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the defect in the investigation cannot be State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 19 of 34 a ground for acquittal, however, if the lapse goes to the prosecution case and prejudice the accused. Then, the court is under legal obligation to scrutinize the evidence with greater care. In Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab (SCC p. 657, para 5) held:
"'In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."
13.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Others AIR 2003 SC 1164 has observed that; If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful.
13.6 Having said that, on joint reading of all the testimonies, it appears that, after the incident, PW4 recorded the statement of PW2 and PW3 and not of PW1. And later, the statement of PW1 was recorded. After that, PW4 waited for around 50 days for the MLC of PW3. And, during that period no inquiry was conducted such as no seizure of the clothes of the injured, no seizure of the alleged weapon, no enquiry from the public witness possibly eyewitness, no recovery of the damaged phone as deposed by the PW2. After registration of FIR, PW4 recorded the supplementary statement of PW2 and PW3. This aspect further strengthens the doubt on the case of the prosecution. Material witnesses State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 20 of 34 are appearing as tutored and not reliable and the investigation in this case further raises many questions about the case of the prosecution. The present case is appearing to be a creation of their previous enmity with the accused persons.
13.7 After analyzing the testimony of PW4, the court finds the following flaws in the case of the prosecution. (i) Document relating to the alleged call made to the police by the complainant on the alleged date of incident is not brought on record by the prosecution to corroborate testimony of the PWs. (ii) Prosecution has failed to answer on the lapse on part of the IO which is that when the date of incident is 01.09.2011, the MLCs on record are dated 01.09.2011, he had recorded the statement of PW1 on 05.09.2011 and if the same disclosed cognizable offence why did not he registered the FIR instead of waiting for the MLC of PW3.
(iii) If, after the alleged incident, the statement of PW2 and of PW3 was recorded, then why did he not act upon it. (iv) In case, IO failed to register the FIR within time, what action the complainant took, for example complaint to the superior officials. (v) Why did not the IO collect the relevant evidences such as public witnesses, broken phone of PW2, blood stained clothes, if any, of the injured. (vi) Whether the existing statements on record are the truth or not, since the admission of tutoring and the selective recording of statement by the IO are on record and the witnesses are contradicting each other on material aspects. Prosecution remained silent on this. These flaws strike at the root of the case of the prosecution as it failed to show bona-fide on the part of the complainant that prompt and timely action was taken by her to reach out to the police against the alleged act of the accused persons, to rule out State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 21 of 34 mala-fide, ill-will and suspicion of an after-thought especially when there is an admitted fact of enmity among the parties. Not furnishing a reasonable explanation on this by the prosecution discredits the witnesses, casts doubts and blemishes over their version as being tutored and untruthful.
13.8 This becomes relevant and of the utmost important especially in the circumstances of the present case, as there is an unexplained delay of around 50 days in registration of a FIR. FIR comes with a presumption of truth and delay in filing dilutes that. And, an unexplained delay gives rise to suspicion that the prosecution case was founded on false grounds and on concocted story. A reference may be made to Bathula N. Rao and Others v. State represented by Public Prosecutor 2008 INSC 512.
13.9 Reference may be made to Harilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Pronounced on September 05, 2023 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has guided by observing that: -
"19. When a FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, the court must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to law possibility of embellishment in the prosecution story, inasmuch as delay gives opportunity for deliberation and guesswork."
13.10. In Thula Kali vs State of Tamil Nadu 1972 3 SCC 393, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized on timely filing of FIR. FIR is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial.
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 22 of 34 13.11. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the prosecution has failed to answer many questions including why there was a delay of around 50 days in registration of FIR and the absence of a reasonable explanation as to why IO waited this long to register the FIR. Also, lapse on the part of the complainant is unexplained. Their testimony, instead of providing clarity, raises fatal doubts. This delay gives the impression that at the time of the incident no cognizable offence was made out against the accused persons and the present case was a product of revenge and was founded on false grounds. The delay of around 50 days is enough to turn an accident into an act of rash and negligence. Delay in registration FIR lead to embellishments and questions credibility. The act of waiting for around 50 days without reason casts black clouds over the submissions of the prosecution. The possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
14. Another aspect which arises in the case of the prosecution is that PW4 deposed that he went to the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW4/C. Whereas, PW2 deposed that he showed the place of incident to PW4. On perusal of Ex. PW4/C, PW2 do not appear as witness in the mentioned document. In cross-examination, PW4 deposed that he had no idea at whose instance site plan was prepared. PW1 deposed that no site plan was prepared at her instance and she never showed the place of incident to the police.
15. Also, It is not the case of the prosecution that no public witnesses were available. The place of incident was a residential locality and at the State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 23 of 34 time of the alleged act, public witnesses were available. However, no public person was made to join the proceeding, even the neighbour whose phone was allegedly used by the PW2 to make the call to the police. It is a well settled principle of law as enshrined in Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. However, it is always prudent to look for a corroboration by any independent witness. It becomes important to revisit the provisions of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C and section 187 of the IPC. IO has failed to explain as to why their names and residence were not recorded, or why was any notice not issued to them, as per the aforesaid discussed provisions. When a statutory provision mandates that an independent witness has to be joined in the investigation, the IO is duty bound to comply with the same. At least he should make sincere efforts in this regard. If someone refuses to join the investigation without any justifiable reason, proper notice u/s 187 IPC should be given to him. Merely stating that the public person refused to join the investigation is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the prosecuting agency. A stereotype statement of non-availability or non- agreement on behalf of witness will not be sufficient to inspire faith of the Court in the story of the prosecution. Non availability of any independent witness/evidence raises suspicion and serious doubt over the case of the prosecution. More so, when the IO failed to even record the names and details of such person, and failed to take any required steps in terms of Section 37 and 42 of Cr.P.C.Reliance may be placed on the case of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC) , Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under; "It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 24 of 34 efforts have been made to join independent witnesses". However, in the present case, prosecution has not produced any public witness in support of their case and PW4 clearly deposed that he never inquired from the public about the incident, despite the submissions of PWs that at the time of the incident, many public persons were present. The investigation in the case has fatal flaws.
16. PW5 Dr. Chander Prakash Meena deposed in place of Dr. Manoj Dhingra as he had expired in 2018-19 due to chronic illlness. He can identify his signatures. He is familiar with his signatures as they worked together. In cross-examination, he deposed that opinion on Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B was not given in his presence and he was not authorized in writing to give evidence in this case. He has denied the suggestion that he was never been authorized to appear and give evidence. Reference may be drawn to State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh (AIR 1983 SC
684).
16.1 In Kamlesh vs State (Crl.A. 481/2019), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that:-
The MLC is authenticated record of injuries which prepared in regular course of business by the doctor and can be relied upon by the court, even when the doctor who prepared the MLC is not examined in the court and record proved by any of the other doctor. The hospital cannot be expected to keep track of the doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither the doctor is expected to keep the hospital informed about his/her whereabouts. Merely State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 25 of 34 because the doctor prepared the MLC is not personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved. Proving of MLC by a colleague doctor who identifies the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who examined the patient or by an administrative staff of the hospital who identify the signature of the doctor is sufficient and good proof and MLC cannot be doubted."
16.2 Keeping that in mind, it is trite law that MLC is only corroborative in nature and not a substantive piece of evidence. The purpose is to corroborate the facts of the case of the prosecution and not to be the basis of it.
16.3 Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1992) 3 SCC 204 Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey observed:
"34. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 26 of 34 once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court."
16.4 On the point of nature of injuries suffered by the injured persons, two MLCs are relied upon by the prosecution. Both MLCs are dated 01.09.2011. First is, MLC Ex. PW5/A of PW3, injuries mentioned in it were stated to be grievous in nature. However, X-ray plate/film or complete record of PW3 is not available to corroborate her testimony. Even so, PW3 deposed that she never received any documents relating to the X-ray records. She and PW1 was never recalled regarding medical opinion. And, the other MLC Ex. PW5/B, injuries mentioned in it were stated to be simple in nature. After analyzing the medical evidence produced by the prosecution, it appears that MLC of complainant/PW1 was not exhibited by the prosecution.
16.5 In Om Prakash Singh @ Pappu Sapata v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 SCC Online Utt 270, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized that, "in the absence of the examination of the radiologist and the X-ray film, the opinion if the doctor cannot be taken to have proved the guilt of an accused under Section 325 IPC beyond reasonable doubt".
16.6 Furthermore, PW1 deposed that she was beaten by danda-lathi and hockey sticks. She received injuries on her head, back, shoulder and other parts of the body. PW2 and PW3 also received injuries. PW2 deposed that PW1 was beaten and blood was oozing from her head. PW3 was beaten by Bala, Bhim and Joginder, and she suffered injuries. PW3 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 27 of 34 deposed that the accused Joginder and Bala started beating her by danda and lathi, and she sustained injuries. She was discharged from the hospital with plaster on her left hand. Except for the statement of PW3 that she had suffered grievous injury to her left hand. The prosecution has not furnished anything to corroborate her testimony on this aspect. Similarly, PW2 deposed only about the condition of PW1 during the alleged incident. Apart from these statements, nothing is placed on record by the prosecution to substantiate the testimony of PW2 and PW3. It is already discussed that the MLC of complainant PW1 was not exhibited by the prosecution. In brief, the prosecution must establish the existence of grievous injury before proceeding further.
16.7 In State v. Maya Dahiya, Delhi High Court, Crl. A. 84/2010 , Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has guided by stating that "facture" must be proved by reliable radiological evidence. Also, reference may be drawn to Rahul Choudhary @ Rahul vs State, Crl.A. 350/2016, on 7 November, 2025. In the present case, apart from the testimony of PW5, the complete medical record of PW3 is not furnished. No medical record of the PW1 was relied upon by the prosecution. The grievous injury was not proved in light of the judgment cited above.
17. It is trite law that in order to convict an accused for the offence under section 325 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt while assaulting the victim and grievous hurt is consequently caused by the said act. The prosecution has examined three eyewitnesses. None of them testified in any way that could indicate that the accused persons State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 28 of 34 intended to cause grievous hurt to the complainant or knew that grievous hurt was likely to be caused during the alleged assault.
17.1. According to the prosecution's argument, the complainant PW1 received grievous hurt in the current case, with injuries to her shoulder, back, head, and other parts of his body. However, it should be emphasized that, while PW1 indicated in her evidence that she was injured after being assaulted by the accused, she did not disclose any details on the nature of the injuries or on the repercussions of the injury. She also did not testify about any serious injuries that would be termed "grievous" under Section 325 of IPC. PW2 describes the condition of PW1 during the alleged incident, however, the same was not deposed by the PW1 herself. And, the MLC of the mentioned witness has not been produced on record by the prosecution. Similarly, The MLC of PW3 Ex. PW5/A discloses grievous hurt, however her complete medical record is not brought before the court to corroborate her testimony on point of grievous injury. The prosecution has failed to substantiate the allegation put by PW1 and PW3 against the accused persons under section 325 of IPC.
17.2 PW1 in Ex. PW1/A stated that when PW3 was going in the gali, accused persons namely, Praveen Devi, Joginder, Bhim Singh and Bala were present there. Praveen and Bala held her. Joginder and Bhim started beating her with hockey sticks and danda. Bhim hit her (PW1) in the head with lathi and other accused person beaten her with hockey sticks. PW2, when came to rescue them, he was beaten too. All the accused persons were forcibly taking her( meri beti ko uthane State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 29 of 34 ki koshish ki). In the witness box, she deposed that when she went outside and saw that accused Praveen was holding PW3 and other accused persons were beating her with hockey sticks and lathi. She was beaten by danda and lathi and received injuries on her head, back, shoulder and other parts of the body. PW2 and PW3 also received injuries. As per Ex. PW1/A, she saw the beginning of the assault, whereas in her deposition, she stated that when she went outside she saw her daughter getting beaten by the accused persons.
17.3 PW2 deposed that PW1 was beaten and blood was oozing from her head. PW3 was beaten by Bala, Bhim and Joginder and she received injuries. PW2 never deposed about the use of weapons by the accused persons in his examination in chief and never deposed or mentioned the role of each accused person in the alleged act. For example who had hockey in his/her hands, who had lathi in his/her hands. PW2 never stated anything against the accused Praveen Devi in his testimony.
17.4 PW3 deposed in examination-in-chief that the accused persons namely Praveen and Bhim were in the gali. When she was passing, Praveen and Bhim caught hold of her. Thereafter, accused Joginder and Bala came and started beating her and tried to force her into the car. They started beating her with a danda and lathi when she resisted due to this she suffered injuries. She was discharged from the hospital with plaster on her left hand. In cross-examination, it was deposed that the accused Joginder assaulted her hockey stick and the accused Bala held her hand. Upon questioning her again, she deposed that Bhim State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 30 of 34 Singh caught hold of her. Lathi was in the hands of accused Bhim Singh and Praveen Devi. Joginder and Bala had hockey sticks in their hands. Accused Bhim Singh, Praveen Devi and Bala held her. In her supplementary statement, she only stated that all the accused person started beating her. The accused Praveen and Bala held her and Joginder and Bhim started beating with hockey sticks and danda. PW2 and PW1 were also beaten. In her examination-in-chief, she never deposed anything regarding the alleged use of hockey sticks during the alleged incident.
17.5 In addition to the discussion above, it is pertinent to mention that during the course of the investigation, the investigating agency was unable to seize even the case property that is danda or hockey sticks that the accused persons allegedly used to commit the offense.
17.6 After analyzing the testimony and the evidence on record, the court finds that the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 contains too many inconsistencies and material contradictions. They do not inspire the confidence of the court. They do not appear as reliable witnesses. The prosecution has not proven any incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to held the accused persons liable for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC.
18. At this stage, the court deems it necessary to mention section 222(2) of Cr.P.C. which stipulates that even if a person may not have been charged with a minor offense, they may still be found guilty of it if they are charged with an offense but the circumstances show that it State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 31 of 34 is a minor offense. It is a well-established legal principle that if the accused was not prejudiced, was informed of the nature of the accusations against him, and was given the chance to defend himself, the mere failure to frame the charge or an error or irregularity in its structuring would not vitiate the proceedings. In the present case, accused persons have not been charged with the offence punishable under 323 of IPC, which is punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
"Section 222(2) of Cr.P.C. states that;- When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may he convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it."
19. Having said that and after analyzing the case of the prosecution, the court finds that the prosecution has failed to answer the following reasonable questions arising out of the case:-
1. When PW4 recorded the statements of the injured witnesses, then why did he not acted upon it?
2. Why has the prosecution remained silent on the delay of around 50 days in registering the FIR.?
3. Why was the complete medical record of the PW3 was not produced on record? Why was the medical record of the complainant was kept out of the case?
4. Why no injured witness deposed on the necessary details regarding the nature of the injuries?
5. Why is no public witness is brought to the witness box, given the fact that the alleged incident took place in a residential State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 32 of 34 locality including the neighbor whose phone was allegedly used by PW2 to make the call to the police?
6. Why is no explanation furnished regarding the absence of documentary evidence establishing bonafide prompt action on part of the complainant such as DD entry/roz-namcha?
7. Upon failure of the IO to register the FIR, why was not action taken by the complainant such as a written complaint to the superior officials?
8. Why the testimony of all the material witnesses contradict each other on every material aspect of the alleged incident?
19.1 Having discussed the above and taking into consideration the circumstances, lacunaes, inconsistencies and material contradictions, the court finds that the prosecution has raised fatal reasonable doubts in the mind of the court. Benefit of these doubts must also be given to the accused persons. As a result, it has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt not only under section 325, but also under section 323 of the IPC.
20. Hence, accused persons namely (i) Bhim Singh S/o Sh. Bhan Singh (ii) Praveen Devi W/o Sh. Indal Singh stand acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 325/34 IPC and u/s 323 of IPC.Digitally signed by GAURAV SINGAL
GAURAV Date:
SINGAL 2025.12.20 16:47:00 Pronounced in the open (GAURAV SINGAL) +0530 Court on 18.12.2025 JMFC-06 (West), Tis Hazari Courts Delhi This judgment contains 34 signed pages.
State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 33 of 34
ANNEXURE #
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
Witness No.
PW-1 Kamlesh Complainant
PW-2 Devender Singh Eyewitness
PW-3 Jyoti Eyewitness
PW-4 Retd. SI Ram Chander IO
PW-5 Dr. Chander Prakash Meena MLC
Exhibit Description of The Witness who proved
Number. Document or attested the document
1. Charge-sheet PW-4
2. Original rukka PW-4
3. DD No. 23A SHO PS Mundka
4. Form 65 Duty Officer(expired)
5. FIR PW-4
6 Site Plan PW-4
7. MLC No. 13471,13473. PW-5
8. Arrest memos PW-4
9. Personal search memos PW-4
Note
# - As per direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat Crl. Appeal No. 2973 of 2023 State Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors. FIR No. 188/11 34 of 34