Delhi District Court
Rohit Malik vs State on 11 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-002747-2024
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024
Rohit Malik
S/o Sh. Narender Kumar Malik
R/o H. No. 538, Sector 22A,
Gurgaon, Haryana
...Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi
...Respondent
Date of institution : 20.03.2024
Arguments heard on : 01.11.2025 and 11.11.2025
Date of pronouncement : 11.12.2025
Appearances:
Sh. Rajiv Tehlan, Ld. Counsel for appellant.
Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
for State/respondent.
Sh. Vikas, Ld. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor
for State/respondent.
Sh. Mohit Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for complainant 'M'.
AND
CNR No. DLNW01-003351-2025
Criminal Revision No. 103/2025
'M'
W/o 'N'
...Revisionist/complainant Digitally signed
by GURVINDER
GURVINDER PAL SINGH
PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11
12:55:24 +0530
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi
And
Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.
Page 1/30
Versus
1. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
2. Rohit Malik
S/o Sh. Narender Kumar Malik
R/o H. No. 538, Sector 22A,
Gurgaon, Haryana
...Respondents
Date of institution : 15.03.2024
Arguments heard on : 01.11.2025 and 11.11.2025
Date of pronouncement : 11.12.2025
Appearances:
Sh. Mohit Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for revisionist.
Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
for State/respondent no. 1.
Sh. Vikas, Ld. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor
for State/respondent no. 1.
Sh. Rajiv Tehlan, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2.
JUDGMENT
Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of (i) Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C) bearing number 65/2024, titled 'Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi'; impugning order on sentence dated 05/02/2024, consequent to judgment of conviction dated 11/05/2023 in case CIS No. 4031/2017, titled 'State vs Rohit Malik', FIR No. 264/2007, Police Station Mangol Puri, under Sections 354/323/506(ii) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) by Court of Ms. Nidhi Chitkara, Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, North District, Rohini Courts, Digitally signed by Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi GURVINDER And GURVINDER PAL SINGH Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. PAL SINGH Date:
Page 2/30 2025.12.11
12:55:39
+0530
Delhi; (ii) Criminal Revision number 103/2025, titled 'M' vs State and Rohit Malik', seeking setting aside of impugned order on sentence dated 05/02/2024; and further to sentence respondent no. 2/convict Rohit Malik to maximum sentence available for offences under Sections 323/354/506(ii) IPC; since both aforesaid lis arise from same impugned order on sentence, consequent to the impugned judgment of Magisterial Court.
2. I had heard arguments from Sh. Rajiv Tehlan, Ld. Counsel for appellant; Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State; Sh. Vikas, Ld. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for Sate; Sh. Mohit Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for complainant 'M' and Sh. Deepak Chiller, Proxy Counsel for complainant 'M' on 01/11/2025 and 11/11/2025 respectively; after which cases were reserved for judgment/order for 11/12/2025. Vide Order No. 47/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025, dated 18/11/2025 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; I was transferred with immediate effect from Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi to the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. In continuation of aforesaid Order No. 47/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025, dated 18/11/2025; Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed the following directions in Order No. 48/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025, dated 26/11/2025:-
"The judicial officers under transfer shall notify the cases in which they had reserved judgements/orders before relinquishing the charge of the court in terms of the posting/transfer order. The judicial officers shall pronounce judgements/orders in all such matters on the date fixed or maximum within a period of 2-3 weeks thereof, notwithstanding the posting/transfer. Date of pronouncement Digitally Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi signed by And GURVINDER Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Page 3/30 2025.12.11
12:55:59
+0530
shall be notified in the cause list of the court to which the matter pertains as also of the court to which the judicial officer has been transferred and on the website."
In compliance of aforesaid orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; these cases were fixed for 11/12/2025 for pronouncement of judgment/order.
I have perused the record of the cases of the appeal; revision and requisitioned Trial Court Record.
3. Vide impugned order on sentence, Magisterial Trial Court ordered for release of appellant Rohit Malik on probation of good behaviour and conduct for the period of one year for the offence under Section 354 IPC; Trial Court further sentenced appellant/convict Rohit Malik under Section 323 IPC to fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days; Trial Court also sentenced appellant/convict Rohit Malik under Section 506(ii) IPC to fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment of 30 days. Besides that, Trial Court imposed (i) cost of Rs. 14,345/- upon appellant/ convict, which was to be provided towards the expenditure incurred by State and (ii) compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to complainant 'M'.
4. Following is the factual matrix of prosecution case leading to registration of the case FIR No. 264/2007, culminating into filing of the charge-sheet. DD No. 18 was recorded at 3.30 pm on 25/04/2007 at police Post Dost of Police Station Mangol Digitally Puri when Omega-50 informed that Malti Devi informed of her signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11 12:56:19 +0530 Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi And Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 4/30
brother-in-law (Nandoi) had come home and quarreled, near House No. 24, Pushpanjali Market. Copy of said DD No. 18 was given to HC Kanwaljeet for appropriate action. SI Badami Lal also reached C-24, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, where HC Kanwaljeet was present and injured complainant 'M' was present. Complainant 'M' did not give her statement but told that she will give her statement on arrival of her mother and father. Wait of mother and father of complainant 'M' ensued. On arrival of father of complainant 'M'; complainant 'M' gave following statement. Alongwith family, complainant 'M' was residing at matrimonial home and was of age 27 years. Complainant 'M' had previously lodged a complaint before CAW Cell, Pitampura against her husband, mother-in-law, appellant/accused, sister-in- law, maternal uncle, Ajay Chandiok, Mohit Chandiok, natives of Gurgaon for subjecting her to cruelty and demand of dowry and harassment; whose date was 23/04/2007 and next date scheduled was 27/04/2007. On 25/04/2007 when complainant 'M' was present at her home, then at about 2.30 pm her mother-in-law alongwith appellant/accused with three associates came from outside; first they sat in the drawing room and had meal. At about 2.45 pm appellant/accused and one of the three associates, who had also accompanied appellant/accused to Women Cell, Pitampura on 23/04/2007, came in the room of complainant 'M'.
Appellant/accused threatened complainant 'M' as 'apna case woman cell se vapis le lo'. Appellant/accused hurled abuses, held hair of complainant 'M'; gave slaps on face of complainant 'M'. Aforesaid other companion/associate of appellant/accused had put hand from behind of complainant 'M', holding waist of Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 12:56:49 +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 5/30
complainant 'M', after which appellant/accused held both hands of complainant 'M' and had then torn the worn suit of complainant 'M'. In the process of grappling, complainant 'M' said to make call to police and when she was in the process of lifting of phone, appellant/accused gave teeth bite on right arm of complainant 'M'. Complainant 'M' shouted. Appellant and his aforesaid associate threatened complainant 'M' as 'apna case woman cell se wapas le lo, nahi to tujhe wa tere mayke walo ko barbad karr denge wa jaan se maar denge'. Saying above said, appellant/accused and his aforesaid associate went away. Complainant 'M' was got medically examined at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura vide MLC No. 472/2007, wherein the examining Doctor mentioned alleged history of assault at home and declared complainant 'M' fit for statement. Case FIR for offences under Sections 354/323/506/34 IPC was registered. Case was investigated. Appellant/accused was enlarged on anticipatory bail, due to which he was admitted to police bail after arrest. On completion of investigation, investigating agency filed the charge-sheet for offences under Sections 354/323/506 IPC.
5. After compliance of the mandate of Section 207 Cr.P.C for supply of the copies of the charge-sheet and the material of investigating agency; Magisterial Court framed charge for the offences under Sections 354/323/506(ii) IPC against appellant/ accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution had examined in all eight witnesses to Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi PAL SINGH Date:
And 2025.12.11
Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. 12:57:06
Page 6/30 +0530
connect accused with the offences charged viz. Complainant 'M' as PW1; 'K', father of complainant 'M' as PW2; Duty Officer HC Madan Lal as PW3; HC Kawaljeet Singh as PW4; HC Rameshwar, DD Writer as PW5; Investigating Officer SI Badami Lal as PW6; Mukul Khulbe, Statistical Assistant at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital as PW7; Dr. Krishn Nandan Kumar as PW8.
7. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, who pleaded innocence and false implication. Thereafter appellant/accused led defence evidence.
8. Appellant/accused examined himself as DW1, under Section 315 Cr.P.C and his mother-in-law 'P' as DW2 in defence evidence. The trial culminated in impugned judgment of conviction of date 11/05/2023 in Magisterial Court.
9. Following is the factual matrix of the appeal and the premise/grounds in the appeal to secure acquittal of appellant by setting aside impugned judgment and impugned order on sentence. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate ex facie version of complainant 'M' on the face of it was false as it was stated that servant Raju as well as mother-in-law of complainant 'M' were present. Investigating Officer did not examine said servant Raju and the mother-in-law of complainant 'M'. Officers of Investigating Agency failed to identify the other three accomplices of appellant, who alongwith appellant had come to the house of complainant 'M', which is a serious lapse and Digitally sig by Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi GURVINDE And GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. 2025.12.11 Page 7/30 12:57:22 +0530 irresponsible attitude of Investigating Officer. As per the case of Dayal Singh & Ors. vs State of Uttaranchal, Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2010 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 03/08/2012, an Investigating Officer is completely responsible and answerable for the manner and methodology adopted in completing his investigation and where the default and omission are so flagrant that it speaks volumes of a deliberate act or such irresponsible attitude of investigation, no Court can afford to overlook it and sometimes these prove fatal to the case of prosecution. In Ex PW1/A, complainant 'M' alleged that appellant had caught hold of her hair and slapped her and bite her on her right arm. MLC Ex PW7/A of complainant 'M' finds mention of complainant 'M' having alleged to be hit on the back, bite on the arm and the hand; whereas examining Doctor found teeth marks on the left forearm of complainant 'M', as detailed in MLC. The name of accused is not mentioned in MLC Ex PW7/A. Mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of document, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sait Tarajee Khimchand & Ors. vs Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya, AIR 1971 SC 1865. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in case Vijender vs State of Delhi, 1997 SSC (CRI) 857 that in view of Section 60 of The Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is bound to lead the best evidence available to prove a certain fact. There is no evidence of outraging the modesty of complainant 'M' by appellant. As per law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal of 2025 arising out of SLP (Criminal) Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11 Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 12:57:38 And +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 8/30
No. 1093 of 2021 decided on 02/01/2025, for application of Section 354 of IPC, the offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her; and such application of force must be with the intent to outraging the modesty. There is no evidence to prove the bite marks were given by appellant to complainant 'M'. The science of the bite marks and analysis has fully developed, and the identity of accused can be proved on the basis of expert report; as was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukesh & Anr. vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 2161. Appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C categorically put the defence of false implication by complainant 'M' due to the property dispute with mother-in-law. In case of Reena Hazarika vs State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2018 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 31/10/2018, it was inter alia held that defence taken cannot be said to be irrelevant, illogical or fanciful in the entirety of the facts and nature of other evidence available; since the accused has only to raise doubts on a preponderance of probability, as was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India way back in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh vs State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 468. Appellant examined himself as DW1 and his mother-in-law as DW2 in defence evidence bringing on record the version of complainant 'M' to be false and his false implication after due deliberation. Even PW4 HC Kanwaljeet categorically stated of refusal of complainant 'M' to get her statement recorded till her father had arrived. There was nothing which prevented complainant 'M' for giving her statement to Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 12:57:54 +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. Page 9/30
police as soon as police arrived. Accordingly, there was substantial delay in recording of statement of complainant 'M' and thereafter registration of FIR. The incident allegedly took place at 2 pm and FIR was recorded at 7.30 pm. No cogent explanation of delay of five hours is borne out of record and it is enough to create the false and fabricated story. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the above mentioned facts, if seen in conjugation with DD No. 18 A; which will lead to logical conclusion that complaint/FIR was false and manipulated. DW2 mother-in-law of appellant had elicited about the conduct, behaviour and reason for complainant 'M' to file the present case. Even appellant as DW1 stated about it. Even defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelieve in defence witnesses, as per law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Dudh Nath Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0137/1981. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in cases (i) Tarun & Ors. vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., MANU/ DEOR/64252/2022 and (ii) Laishram Premila Devi & Ors. vs The State & Ors., MANU/DE/0378/2021 inter alia held that the tendency to file cases under Sections 354/509 IPC in dispute between neighbors to settle scores is on the rise and needs to be curbed and such cases are so got registered either to force a party from withdrawing a complaint or to arm twist a party. Conviction can only be recorded on the sole testimony of interested witness complainant, if such testimony inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances, which militate against veracity of such deposition. Similarly was held by Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 12:58:10 +0530 And Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 10/30
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 1098 of 2024 decided on 11/03/2024. The findings recorded by Ld. Trial Court are contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned judgment of conviction and impugned order on sentence against appellant are thus liable to be set aside, whereas appellant is liable to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323/354/506 IPC.
10. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State prayed for dismissal of the appeal of appellant on the following premise. Appeal is misconceived. The grounds of the appeal do not hold any water. Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of material placed on record and the evidence led. It was prayed for dismissing the appeal as the laid grounds/premise of appeal do not carve out any case for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction since the testimony of sole material witness complainant 'M' is reliable, cogent and trustworthy for which there is corroboration from MLC Ex PW7/A.
11. Ld. Counsel for complainant 'M' prayed for dismissal of the appeal on the premise of following contentions. FIR is not required to be an encyclopedia of the case, as per law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subhash Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2009 SC 2490. Appellant was also Digitally named by complainant 'M' in her filed complaint in the CAW signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11 Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 12:58:24 And +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 11/30
Cell. It was plausible in the fact of the matter that appellant threatened to complainant 'M' to withdraw her complaint before CAW Cell, as he stands to benefit if the complaint is withdrawn. Mother-in-law of complainant 'M' was also an accused in complaint lodged by complainant 'M' before CAW Cell; accordingly, is an interested witness. DW2, mother-in-law, was not present in the room where the incident took place. PW1 elicited that no servant named Raju was working with them at the relevant time. Even PW6 IO SI Badami Lal deposed that no servant was present at the place of incident when he reached the spot. Moreover appellant failed to produce the aforesaid servant Raju, even in his defence evidence. Other three associates/ accomplices of appellant were unknown to complainant 'M'. Even Investigating Officer did not produce them before complainant 'M' for identification. Laches on the part of Officers of Investigating Agency do not vitiate the prosecution case, if there is sufficient evidence against the accused. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kashinath Mondal vs State of West Bengal, AIR 2012 SC 3134 held that remissness or inefficiency in investigation is not a ground for acquittal if the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Minor discrepancies in the case of prosecution are not fatal. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab, MANU/SC/1167/2013 held that minor errors or lapses should not be given undue weight and such discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution's case. Complainant 'M' may have felt more comfortable giving her statement in the presence of her father, which does not indicate manipulation. Appellant did Digitally signed by GURVINDE Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi GURVINDER PAL SINGH And PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. 2025.12.11 Page 12/30 12:58:40 +0530 not dispute his presence at the scene of crime nor provided any explanation regarding the injuries sustained by complainant 'M'. Appellant had failed to create any dent in the case of prosecution or to shake the credibility of the complainant 'M' during the course of cross examination. The testimony of complainant 'M' had remained consistent, natural and trustworthy and no material has emerged in cross examination of complainant 'M' to discredit her deposition. Statement of complainant 'M' inspires confidence and is corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record. Non production of named material witnesses servant Raju and his wife alleged by defence to be present at the scene of crime leads to making out case for invocation of Illustration (g) of Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, as if servant Raju and his wife were examined in defence on production, they would likely not have supported the case of defence. Deposition of DW2 is merely a repetition of deposition of DW1 and is evidently biased, being an interested witness, thus closely associated with appellant. When taken as a whole, the prosecution evidence is consistent, cogent and convincing. The acts of accused appellant, as narrated by complainant 'M', clearly establish that appellant had used criminal force on complainant 'M' with the intention to outrage her modesty; which fulfill the ingredients of Section 354 IPC. The evidence also shows that the appellant accused voluntarily caused hurt to complainant 'M', satisfying the essential elements of Section 323 IPC. The threats extended by appellant, coupled with his conduct and the surrounding circumstances, were of such a grave nature as to cause alarm to complainant 'M' and fall squarely within the Digitally signed by GURVINDE GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 12:58:54 +053 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. Page 13/30
ambit of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 (ii) IPC. The testimony of complainant 'M' has gone un-impeached. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence version is unsubstantiated, artificial and fails to inspire any confidence. From the chain of circumstances and the laid oral and documentary evidence, led by the prosecution, leave no room for any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused appellant. It was prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
12. In the filed criminal revision petition no. 103/2025, revisionist/complainant 'M' prayed for setting aside the impugned order on sentence and further sentence the appellant/convict to the maximum sentence available for the offences under Sections 323/354/506(ii) IPC on the following premise/grounds. Ld. Trial Court failed to correctly analyze the act of appellant/convict through which he outraged the modesty of revisionist/complainant 'M'. The lenient approach taken by Ld. Trial Court in impugned order on sentence has reduced the deterrent effect of the punishment provided under the Code for such offences. Considering the nature of offences wherein the modesty of a woman is outraged, the question of showing any leniency or granting the benefit of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is not warranted. It is well settled proposition of law that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment, which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society while Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 12:59:12 +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 14/30
considering the determinative factor of sentence commensurate with the gravity and nature of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore, the solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence, as awarding a lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same society suffers. Undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and the society cannot long endure under serious threats. If the Courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance. Therefore, it is the duty of Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. Ld. Counsel for revisionist complainant 'M' relied upon the cases (i) Ajahar Ali vs State of West Begal, Criminal Appeal No. 1623 of 2013 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 04/10/2013; (ii) State of Rajasthan vs Sri Chand, Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2009 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 11/05/2015; (iii) Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 516; (iv) State of Andhra Pradesh vs Bodem Sundara Rao, (1995) 6 SCC 230; (v) Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana vs State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220; (vi) Mahesh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (1987) 3 SCC 80; (vii) Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. vs State of Gujarat & Ors., Appeal (Crl.) 118 of 2006 decided on 19/01/2006 by Hon'ble Supreme Court; (viii) Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. vs State of Gujarat, Digitally Criminal Appeal Nos. 2-5 of 2003 decided by Hon'ble Supreme signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11 Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 12:59:28 And +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 15/30
Court of India on 12/05/2009; and prayed for award of maximum sentence available for the offences for which appellant was convicted.
13. Ld. Counsel for appellant vehementally argued that the subsequent registration of FIR No. 177/2024, dated 27/04/2024, under Sections 506/509 IPC by complainant 'M' against appellant was just to disturb the probation period of the appellant and appellant had already suffered for more than two years of probation as even earlier Ld. Magisterial Court had passed judgment of conviction on 15/12/2015 after which appellant was sentenced on 17/03/2016 by Magisterial Court, who enlarged appellant on probation of good conduct for two years; but when the said judgment of conviction was impugned; the case of appellant was remanded back to Magisterial Court by Appellate Court. In case of Baccarose Perfumes & Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3216 of 2024 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 06/09/2024; it was inter alia held that mere registration of FIR cannot be interpreted to mean that it constitute the initiation of such proceedings; it is only after final report is submitted, cognizance for the offence is taken. In case of Sachin Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2025:HHC:31339, Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh inter alia held that registration of FIR against the petitioner while on parole cannot be made basis to decline parole to the petitioner; since these should also be given opportunities to solve their Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 12:59:44 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. +0530 Page 16/30 personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with the society. Even in case of Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs State of Gujarat & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 4307 of 2024 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 21/10/2024, it was inter alia held that registration of cognizable offence against the convict per se is not a ground to cancel the remission order and the allegations of breach of conditions cannot be taken at their face value; whether case for cancellation of remission is made out, will have to be decided in the facts of each case. The impugned judgment and impugned order on sentence had not attained finality. Ld. Counsel for appellant prayed for dismissal of revision.
14. The ocular version of the incident is borne out of testimony of examined sole prosecution witness, eye witness, victim/complainant 'M' PW1 herself. To base the conviction of the appellant/accused on sole testimony of victim/complainant 'M'; such testimony must inspire confidence; is to be reliable and trustworthy and should be free from severe infirmities, inherent improbabilities and material contradictions going to the root of the matter to check and shake the basic version and core of the prosecution case. PW1 victim/complainant 'M' testified in Magisterial Court that on 25/04/2007 she was present in her room at her residence when at around 2.15-2.30 pm, appellant alongwith three other persons and her mother-in-law came to the home. PW1 was not knowing the name of said three persons and one of them had met her 2/3 days before the incident in the CAW Cell. Aforesaid persons sat in the drawing room and Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi PAL SINGH Date:
And 2025.12.11 13:00:04 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. +0530 Page 17/30
mother-in-law served food to them. Appellant alongwith the person, who had met PW1 in the CAW Cell, entered into the room of PW1. Appellant caught hold of hair of PW1 and also threatened PW1 that if she did not withdraw her case from CAW Cell, they will kill her and her family members. Aforesaid other person accompanying appellant apprehended PW1 from her back side and appellant then had torn the suit worn by victim/ complainant 'M' from front side. When PW1 tried to call the police from landline phone, appellant gave teeth bite on right hand of PW1. PW1 started crying. Appellant and aforesaid other person accompanying appellant misbehaved with PW1. PW1 shouted and those persons left the home of PW1. PW1 called police and thereafter called her father. When police officials reached at spot, PW1 told to police that she will give her statement only in the presence of her father. PW1 was taken by police to Mahavir Hospital where PW1 was got medically examined. PW1 gave statement Ex PW1/A to police on which the FIR was registered against appellant. PW1 admitted that after her marriage in year 1997, she was residing in her matrimonial home with her mother-in-law. PW1 also admitted that being brother-in-law, appellant used to come to their home with wife, who was sister-in-law of PW1 and the two daughters. In the complaint filed by PW1 in CAW Cell, PW1 had also named her husband as an accused and in her deposition PW1 stated that as on that day there was no dispute with her husband and PW1 had settled the matter with her husband. PW1 also admitted in cross examination that she filed a civil suit for stay against her mother- in-law for dispossessing her from the matrimonial home. PW1 in Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 13:00:22 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. +0530 Page 18/30 cross examination also elicited that when she had called the police on phone, she told them that 3-4 persons had threatened her and police should reach there immediately. PW1 claimed in cross examination to have told the name of appellant as an accused even to Doctor, who medically examined her. PW1 also categorically admitted that she did not state anything to police regarding the incident prior to arrival of her father.
15. Father of victim/complainant 'M' PW1 was examined as PW2, who in deposition before Trial Court stated of having received call at about 3 pm on 25/04/2007 from victim/complainant 'M' when he was present in his office and victim/complainant 'M' stated that 'mujhe bacha lo' and she was continuously weeping. On that PW2 immediately rushed towards the matrimonial home of PW1 victim/complainant 'M' and found police official had already reached there. The police official took victim/ complainant 'M' PW1 to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, where she was medically examined. In her hearsay version PW2 stated that his daughter PW1 victim/complainant 'M' disclosed later on that 3-4 persons including appellant entered into the home of PW1 and gave her beatings.
16. In lodged report Ex PW1/A the narration of sequence of events of occurrence was at variance from narration of sequence of events of occurrence testified by victim/complainant 'M' in Court. In Ex PW1/A, it is the version of PW1 that after appellant with accomplices came in room of victim/complainant 'M' in matrimonial home, initially appellant threatened victim/ Digitally signed by GURVINDER Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi GURVINDER PAL SINGH And PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. 2025.12.11 Page 19/30 13:00:39 +0530 complainant 'M' as 'apna case woman cell se vapis le lo'; after which appellant hurled abuses; holding hair of victim/ complainant 'M'; gave slaps on face of victim/complainant 'M'; companion/associate of appellant had put hand from behind of victim/complainant 'M; holding waist of victim/complainant 'M'; after which appellant held both hands of victim/ complainant 'M'; after which appellant had torn the worn suit of victim/complainant 'M'; thereafter in the process of grappling, victim/complainant 'M' said to make call to police; when victim/complainant 'M' was in the process of lifting of phone, then appellant gave teeth bite on right arm of victim/complainant 'M'. Further version of PW1 victim/ complainant 'M' of sequence of events is that appellant and his associates threatened PW1 victim/complainant 'M' as 'apna case woman cell se wapas le lo, nahi to tujhe wa tere mayke walo ko barbad karr denge wa jaan se maar denge'. Hurling of abuses; giving slaps on face of victim/complainant 'M'; holding both hands of victim/complainant 'M'; grappling with victim/ complainant 'M'; giving teeth bite on right arm of victim/ complainant 'M'; are the facts narrated by PW1 victim/ complainant 'M' in complaint Ex PW1/A but all these facts find no mention in deposition of PW1 in Court on 21/08/2010. With respect to teeth bite, PW1 victim/complainant 'M' in deposition stated that appellant had given teeth bite on her right hand. MLC Ex PW7/A finds mention of injury 3 as 'teeth marks on left forearm'. True that there is an over writing and the initial writing on Ex PW7/A with respect to aforesaid third injury is Digitally 'teeth marks on right forearm' whereas after cutting the word signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11 Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 13:00:56 And +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 20/30
'right' , the word 'left' is written above it. PW8 Dr. Krishn Nandan Kumar testified that the MLC Ex PW7/A was prepared by Dr. Shobhni Rajan, who examined PW1 victim/complainant 'M' and Dr. Shobhni Rajan had left the services of the hospital, whereas PW8 was conversant with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Shobhni Rajan. There is no prosecution evidence on record to prove that the bite marks were given by appellant to victim/complainant 'M' despite the fact that on the basis of expert report it could have been so established, had it been the case; since the science of the bite marks and analysis has fully developed, and even the identity of accused can be proved on the basis of report of such expert; as was so held in the case of Mukesh & Anr. vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
17. It is the own case of complainant/victim 'M' that after her marriage, she used to stay in matrimonial home where her mother-in-law DW2 was also residing. Presence of DW2 at the matrimonial home of PW1 complainant/victim 'M' is established on record. DW2 cannot be at all said to be an introduced witness. True that appellant, who examined himself as DW1 and mother- in-law DW2 were not in good terms with complainant/victim 'M' as on the day of incident; there was pending CAW Cell complaint lodged by complainant/victim 'M' against her in-laws including her husband; DW2 mother-in-law, brother-in-law appellant DW1. Complainant/victim 'M', who suffered simple injury, as per the opinion of Doctors in MLC Ex PW7/A; was conscious, oriented and in senses and had no history of loss of consciousness; cannot Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11 And 13:01:16 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. +0530 Page 21/30 be said to be in such a condition or in immense pain; preventing complainant/victim 'M' to make her statement/complaint to police official(s) on arrival, in right earnest, at first possible opportunity; there being no impediment in the way of PW1 complainant/victim 'M' to do so. Yet, as per the own version of PW1 complainant/victim 'M', she declined to make statement to police official on arrival unless her father arrived there. Only after arrival of PW2, father of PW1, and taking away of complainant/victim 'M' from place of incident to hospital; later thereto after PW2 accompanied PW1 to hospital; subsequent thereto PW1 complainant/victim 'M' gave complaint Ex PW1/A to police. It brings into fore the own explained delay in lodging report and probability of introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation by complainant/victim 'M' PW1 with her father PW2. Existence of marks of teeth bite on left forearm bely the two versions of complainant/victim 'M' PW1. First version being as per Ex PW1/A, of appellant having given teeth bite on her right arm, whereas in the second version, complainant/victim 'M' PW1 in deposition in Court narrating appellant having given teeth bite on right hand. Forearm and hand are distinct and different. Teeth bite on left forearm, as observed in Ex PW7/A, brings into fore the probability of self inflicted injury. Appellant as accused, was prejudiced by opportunity being not made available to him to cross examine Dr. Shobni Rajan, who medically examined complainant/victim 'M' PW1; to ascertain the possibility of aforesaid injury 3 on Ex PW7/A of marks of teeth bite on left forearm to be possible as self inflicted injury or Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 13:01:42 +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 22/30
not. It is not the case of prosecution that the present whereabouts of Dr. Shobni Rajan were not known or she could not be located after due diligence to testify for examination of complainant/ victim 'M' PW1. Aforesaid material facts were lost sight of by the Trial Court in adjudicating the criminal trial and holding prosecution having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,
18. In 2008 CRI. L. J. 3061, Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, Apex Court held that:
"Coming to applicability of the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of large number of other co-
accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the Court has to carefully screen the evidence. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction in India, nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely Digitally signed by GURVINDER Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi GURVINDER PAL SINGH And PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. 13:02:16 +0530 Page 23/30 involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366).
Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and another v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead-stop. The witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main.
Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sahrab s/s Belli Nayata and another v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 3 SCC 751, and Ugar Ahir and others v.
The State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277).
An attempt has to be made to in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is Digitally signed not feasible to separate truth from GURVINDER by GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2025.12.11 Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 13:02:35 +0530 And Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 24/30
falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwieolae Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15; and Balaka Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another, AIR 1981 SC 1390, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and these are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
19. In the case of Thulia Kali vs State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1973 SC 501; Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that:-
"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report Digitally signed by Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi GURVINDE And GURVINDER PAL SINGH Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. PAL SINGH Date:
Page 25/30 2025.12.11
13:02:51
+0530
not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."
20. Fact of the matter brings on record that there had been considerable delay in lodging the first information report, which resulted in embellishment, bringing into fore probability that the first information report was a creature of an afterthought, introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation of complainant/victim 'M' PW1 with her father PW2; since on account of delay, said report Ex PW1/A of PW1 complainant/victim 'M' not only got bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger crept in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation of PW1 with her father PW2. It is more so, as there existed the motive for complainant/victim 'M' PW1 with aid and assistance of her father PW2 to falsely implicate appellant, for getting the benefits from property, as is borne out from the version of defence emanating from deposition of appellant DW1 under Section 315 Cr.P.C and DW2; wherein DW2 categorically asserted that appellant did not enter in the room of complainant/victim 'M' PW1 in the matrimonial home of PW1 shared by mother-in-law DW2. Senior citizen DW2 testified that her daughter-in-law PW1 and her son (husband of PW1) wanted to grab her immovable and movable properties. Magisterial Trial Court also lost sight of the law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Dudh Nath Pandey vs State Digitally Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi signed by GURVINDER And GURVINDER PAL SINGH Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. PAL SINGH Date:
Page 26/30 2025.12.11
13:03:04
+0530
of Uttar Pradesh (supra); wherein it was inter alia held that even defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelieve in defence witnesses.
21. When read as whole, the testimony of complainant/victim 'M' can be classified in category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness as per categorization of the witnesses in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614.
22. There are two sets of witnesses on record. One set of witnesses is as per case of prosecution. Amongst witnesses of prosecution, is the testimony of sole material but interested testimony of complainant/victim 'M' PW1, who has been classified in category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness, as above said. The second category of witnesses on record is of defence witnesses. Appellant himself as DW1 examined under Section 315 Cr.P.C and his mother-in-law examined as DW2 in defence evidence. Defence evidence puts forth the case of incident as complained by complainant/victim 'M' PW1 Ex PW1/A infact having never taken place and appellant having been falsely implicated by complainant/victim 'M'. Even DW2 clearly specified that appellant DW1 never entered the room of PW1 on the fateful afternoon and only when the son of DW2 objected to arrival of appellant in the home and there took place exchange of hot words, when complainant/victim 'M' was not in attendance at said place; Digitally signed b Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi GURVIN And GURVINDER PAL SIN Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. PAL SINGH Date:
Page 27/30 2025.12
13:03:22
+0530
appellant after leaving DW2 had left the matrimonial home of complainant/victim 'M' PW1, shared by her husband and mother-in-law DW2. In the probability of there being two views on record; one in favour of prosecution and the other in favour of accused; then as per law laid in case of Prem Singh Yadav vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 178 (2011) DLT 529; wherein pronouncements in cases (i) Dilip vs State of M.P., 1 (2007) CCR 354 (SC): II (2007) SLT 60 : (2009) 1 SCC 450; (ii) Gagan Kanejia vs State of Punjab, I (2007) CCR 89 (SC) : IX (2006) SLT 406 : (2006) 13 SCC 516; were relied; the later view, in favour of accused, should prevail.
23. The testimony of sole interested material witness complainant/ victim 'M' PW1 is embedded with material contradictions, severe infirmities and inherent improbabilities, as stated above. It is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence of PW1 in toto. (See Zwieolae Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15; and Balaka Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962).
24. Relying upon the law laid and elicited in the preceding paragraphs, it would be extremely hazardous to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the premise of neither wholly Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 13:03:41 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. +0530 Page 28/30 reliable nor wholly unreliable testimony of complainant/victim 'M' PW1. The testimony of sole interested material witness complainant/victim 'M' PW1, in absence of corroboration from any other cogent evidence; when such testimony is embedded with material contradictions, severe infirmities and inherent improbabilities; cannot be made basis for upholding the conviction of appellant Rohit Malik for offences in question. Appellant Riohit Malik deserves benefit of doubt. Accordingly, appeal of appellant Rohit Malik succeeds as prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellant Rohit Malik beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant Rohit Malik is held not guilty and his conviction is set aside and appellant is acquitted for offences charged.
25. Bonds furnished by appellant are cancelled. Sureties discharged. Appellant becomes entitled for refund of amounts of costs and compensation, if deposited. Said amounts be released to appellant on expiry of period of appeal/other lis, of State/complainant before Superior Court(s) or further orders of Superior Court(s), whichever are later.
26. As a consequence, revision petition of complainant/ victim 'M' for enhancing the awarded punishment to appellant becomes infructuous on setting aside of the conviction of appellant and his acquittal. Revision petition is dismissed.
27. Trial Court Record be sent back with copy of this judgment. Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi 2025.12.11 And 13:03:58 +0530 Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 29/30
28. Criminal appeal file and revision petition file be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open Court by GURVINDER
today i.e. 11th December, 2025 GURVINDER PAL SINGH
PAL SINGH Date: 2025.12.11
13:04:10 +0530
(Gurvinder Pal Singh)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (DK) Previously:
Principal District & Sessions Judge North West District, Rohini, Delhi (DK) Criminal Appeal No. 65/2024 Rohit Malik vs State of Delhi And Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr.Page 30/30