Delhi District Court
State vs Preeti on 20 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
CNR No. DLSH01-003539-2025
SC No. 202/2025
State Vs. Preeti & Anr.
FIR No. 595/2023
PS Harsh Vihar
U/s 308/323/341/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Preeti
W/o Sh. Anil Kumar
2. Khushi,
D/o Sh. Subhash
Both R/o H. No. C-2/482,
Gali No. 14, Harsh Vihar,
Delhi.
........ Accused persons
Date of Institution of case 13.06.2025
Date of case reserved for Judgment 11.05.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 20.05.2026
Decision Accused Preeti and Khushi
are acquitted of the offence
u/s 308/34 IPC, but convicted
u/s 324/341/34 IPC
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 1 of 29
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.05.20
14:46:32
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, complainant Kavita went to PS Harsh Vihar on 26.10.2023 and DD No. 98A was recorded regarding her injury and she was sent to GTB Hospital for treatment.
Complainant Kavita in her complaint dt. 27.10.2023 alleged that she was resident of Harsh Vihar, Delhi and residing at 1st floor at C-2/482, Gali No. 14 and on 2 nd floor, her Devar Anil was residing with his wife, children and his sister-in-law (saali) Khushi. On 26.10.2023, at about 09:00 pm, when she was at her floor, her Devrani Preeti was scolding the children of complainant Kavita on the issue of opening the gate, which was opposed by complainant and Khushi also came there. Accused Preeti and Khushi were carrying rod and danda respectively in their hands and they both started beating her and when she managed to run away from there, they both caught hold of her and again, hit her with rod and danda due to which she sustained head injury, which lead to bleeding.
2. On the above complaint of the complainant, the FIR was registered vide FIR No. 595/2023, dt. 27.10.2023 in PS Harsh Vihar u/s 323/341/34 IPC. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed against accused Preeti and Khushi u/s 308/341/34 IPC and after filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance of offences were taken against the accused persons.
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 2 of 29
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20
14:46:39
+0530
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 308/341/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Preeti and Khushi on 04.11.2025. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Admission/denial of documents u/s 330 BNSS was conducted on 21.01.2026. Accused persons admitted the following documents:
(a) FIR No. 595/2023, PS Harsh Vihar, Ex.PA1.
(b) Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PA2.
(c) DD No. 98A dt. 26.10.2023, Ex.PA3.
In view of the above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with :
(a) SI Vinod Singh (mentioned at Sl. No. 2 in the LoW) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined six (5) witnesses in its favour to prove the case.
6. PW1 Kavita deposed that she was doing the work of stitching and residing at H. No. 482, Gali No. 14, Harsh Vihar at First Floor for the last 10 years. Her devar Anil is residing on the 2nd floor with accused Preeti, three children and co-accused Khushi (sister-in-law). In the month of October, 2023, at about 09:00 pm, when she was at her home with her children, accused Preeti and Khushi came and her children had gone downstairs to open the gate and then accused Preeti and Khushi started abusing her children for opening the gate very late. Then, accused persons State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 3 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:46:43 +0530 came to her floor and PW1 asked them why they were abusing, then accused Khushi went upstairs and brought one danda and one iron rod. Accused Preeti had hit PW1 with iron rod on her head and accused Khushi had beaten PW1 with danda on her back and PW1 fell down and started bleeding.
7. PW1 further deposed that she tried to call the police at 112 number, but call could not be connected. Then, she went to PS Harsh Vihar and lodged her complaint. PW1 again called at 112 number and police had taken her to GTB Hospital where she was treated. PW1 further deposed that her statement/complaint dt. 27.10.2023, Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the police. PW1 had shown the place of occurrence and IO prepared the site plan at her instance, Ex.PW1/B. PW1 had correctly identified herself in 2 photographs, Ex.P1 (colly) which are of her bleeding after the incident and that she sustained stitches in her head. PW1 had correctly identified accused Preeti and Khushi in the Court.
8. PW2 Dr. Reena Jain deposed that on 26.10.2023, she was posted as CMO (Casualty Medical Officer) at GTB Hospital, Delhi and on that day, one patient Kavita W/o Sunil, 33 yrs, female, was brought by ASI Virender of PS Harsh Vihar with alleged history of physical assault. The patient was examined by Dr. Jai Gupta (JR) under her supervision and control, vide MLC No. C/0883/98/23 dt. 26.10.2023. As per the local examination, history of loss of consciousness, vomiting present. PW2 further deposed that as per the MLC, there was injury found upon the body of patient i.e. one Laceration size 3 x 1 cm on occipital region. After primary treatment, patient was referred to Neuro State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 4 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:46:49 +0530 Surgery for further management. Dr. Jai Gupta had left the services of GTB Hospital and his present whereabouts were not known as per the records of hospital. She was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Jai Gupta as he had worked under her during his posting and she had seen him writing and signing in official discharge of duties. PW2 had correctly identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Jai Gupta in MLC, Ex.PW2/A, bears her name at point A and signature and stamp of Dr. Jai Gupta at point B.
9. PW3 Dr. Ajay Sharma deposed that he was working as SR at Neuro Surgery Department, GTB Hospital since December, 2023. Dr. Rutvik Makwana, SR, Neuro Surgery was working in the Neuro Surgery Department. He had left the services of GTB Hospital and his present whereabouts were not known as per official record of GTB Hospital and PW3 worked with him in the past and acquainted with his handwriting and signature. PW3 had correctly identified the endorsement regarding the nature of injury given as simple by Dr. Rutvik Makwana at point X and bears the signature and stamp/seal of doctor at point B on the MLC, Ex.PW2/A.
10. PW4 SI Bijendra Singh deposed that on 26.10.2023, he was posted as ASI at PS Harsh Vihar and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am (27.10.2023) and was present in the PS during his duty hours. At about 09:00- 09:15 pm, duty officer produced the complainant Kavita (injured) before PW4 after lodging the GD No. 98A regarding the quarrel, Ex.PA3. PW4 further deposed that he sent the complainant to State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 5 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:46:55 +0530 GTB Hospital for medical treatment with her male relative. Later, PW4 visited GTB Hospital where he collected the MLC, Ex.PW2/A. When PW4 reached at the hospital, as the complainant was under treatment so she stated that she would give her statement at later stage. PW4 returned back to the PS. Next day in the afternoon hours, complainant again visited the PS and came to PW4. PW4 recorded her statement in his own handwriting, Ex.PW1/A, prepared the rukka, Ex.PW4/A and handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR u/s 323/341/34 IPC. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, PW4 along with complainant visited the place of incident where he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, Ex.PW1/B. The place of incident was situated at the first floor of the building i.e. C-2/482, Gali No. 14, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. There were no CCTV camera installed at or nearby the spot. No blood stains or weapon of offence i.e. danda was found to PW4 at or nearby the spot.
11. PW4 further deposed that he also tried to search accused Preeti and Khushi at or nearby the spot. They both were residing at the 1st floor and complainant was residing at ground floor of above said building. Thereafter, PW4 recorded the supplementary statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.PC, Ex.PW1/DX4. At later stage, section 308 IPC was invoked in the present case on the directions of senior official as complainant sustained injury on her head. During investigation, PW4 was searching accused persons and on 15.12.2023, accused Preeti herself visited at PS and after interrogation, PW4 bound down accused Preeti vide memo u/s 41A Cr.PC, Ex.PW4/B. State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 6 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:47:04 +0530 Interrogation report of accused Preeti is Ex.PW4/C. PW4 was transferred in May, 2024 and he handed over filed to MHC(R). PW4 had correctly identified accused Preeti in the Court.
12. PW5 ASI Budhpal Singh deposed that in 2025, the file of the present case was handed over to PW5 by MHC(R) as further investigation was marked to him. On perusal of file record, he found that accused Khushi was remained to be bound down. PW5 also found mobile number of one Anil, who was the jija of accused Khushi. During investigation, he served a notice upon Anil on behalf of accused Khushi. On one day, when Anil along with Khushi and accused Preeti came to PW5 in the PS. PW5 made inquiry from accused Khushi and bound down her and released her thereafter. After completion of investigation, PW5 prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same before the Court. PW5 had correctly identified accused Preeti and Khushi in the Court.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/s 351 BNSS (u/s 313 Cr.PC)
13. Statements of accused persons Preeti and Khushi were recorded u/s 351 BNSS (u/s 313 Cr.PC) on 18.04.2026 and they denied the incriminating evidence put to them. They stated that all the witnesses are interested witness and they have deposed against them because of property dispute going for a long time between complainant and accused persons by falsely implicating them in this case and other cases, complainant wants to grab their share from the ancestral property.
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 7 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:47:09 +0530 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR BOTH ACCUSED
14. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused persons that they had been falsely implicated by the police at the instance of complainant and they had never caused any injury to the victim/complainant. There is no independent witness to the alleged occurrence nor the same was captured in the CCTV footage. There was no danda or rod allegedly used in the crime, recovered, which shows that no weapon was used by accused persons and no PC remand of the accused was taken to recover the same. It is further submitted that the accused persons have not wrongfully restrained the complainant. The complainant had settled the family dispute with the accused persons and the same was reduced to writing and she had taken Rs. 1.5 Lakh in the said settlement/MOU dt. 20.11.2023 between accused persons and complainant and in the pendrive, there is a recording, which suggest that complainant wanted to dispossess and evict the accused persons from the said house and that is why, she lodged the false complaint and present FIR against accused persons. Accused Preeti had made complaint against complainant for dispossessing her and her family.
15. PW1 complainant had made material improvements in her version and she is not a reliable witness. Further only simple injury was caused, which was a single injury, which could never cause the death of complainant nor there was any intention or knowledge on part of accused persons to kill complainant. There State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 8 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:47:15 +0530 was delay in FIR and section 308 IPC was wrongly invoked and on the date of incident,when accused persons returned home, the main door was locked inside and despite repeated knocking, it was not opened and when opened and they went inside to proceed upstairs, they were confronted aggressively by the complainant to vacate the premises and complainant abused them and complainant might have suffered injury accidentally during scuffle, which was started by her. The investigation is defective and mechanical and there was no mens rea or premeditation in the crime and no injury was caused on vital part with lethal force. Accused persons have also filed the written submissions. Thus, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon following judgments:-
1. State NCT of Delhi Vs. Varun Dass & Anr,
2. Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393,
3. Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808,
4. Ramesh Vs. State (CA No. 965/2009),
5. Bade Lal Parshad & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. (Crl Rev. 207/2010),
6. State Vs. Kamlesh Bahadur, 2023 DHC 6678,
7. Bhura Vs. State NCT of Delhi,
8. Narender Kumar Oberoi and Ors. Vs. State (Cr. 289/2014).
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
17. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and the complainant has deposed the same date, State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 9 of 29 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2026.05.20 14:47:27 +0530 time and place of occurrence as stated in her complaint, Ex.PW1/A and site plan was prepared by IO at her instance and she sustained injury on her head, which is vital part of body as she was hit by danda and rod by accused persons and non- recovery of weapon is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The concerned doctors have proved the injury, though it is simple in nature, but it shows that accused persons caused injury with intention to kill her and victim remained consistent in her testimony and her cross-examination and the said MOU and the pendrive cannot be relied upon as there are no originals of MOU and pendrive was not sent to FSL. IO has also corroborated the testimony of victim.
18. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
19. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses to prove its case including PW-1/complainant.
20. The charge against accused persons is u/s 308/341/34 IPC.
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide-
"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 10 of 29
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:47:41 +0530
21. Complainant Kavita proved her complaint dt. 27.10.2023, Ex.PW1/A, wherein she alleged that on 26.10.2023, at about 09:00 pm, when she was at her floor, her Devrani Preeti was scolding children of complainant Kavita on the issue of opening the gate, which was opposed by complainant and Khushi also came there. Accused Preeti and Khushi started beating her with iron rod and danda carried by them and when she tried to run away, they both caught hold of her and again, hit her with rod and danda due to which she sustained head injury, which lead to bleeding.
22. Complainant was examined as PW1 and she deposed the correct month and year, place and time of occurrence of offence with her as stated in the said complaint above and that she was at home with her children and when accused persons came, her children had gone downstairs to open the gate, but accused persons started abusing her children for opening gate very late and both accused came to her 1 st floor and accused Khushi had brought one danda and iron rod from upstairs and accused Preeti had hit her with iron rod on her head and accused Khushi had hit her with danda due to which she started bleeding.
23. PW1 proved the site plan, Ex.PW1/B and identified herself in the photographs, Ex.P1 in which she was bleeding and sustained stitches in her head, but neither any negatives of the photographs has been proved nor any certificate u/s 65B IEA is proved regarding taking print out of the same nor any witness has been examined qua those photographs to prove the same and thus, the same could not be proved by the prosecution.State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 11 of 29
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:47:47 +0530
24. PW1 was consistent in her deposition and her earlier statements. In her cross-examination, she identified her sons and son of her devar Sunil in photograph, Ex.PW1/DX, but it was objected to by Ld. Addl. PP as to mode of proof and Ld. Counsel has not proved the same as per law as neither negatives have been proved nor it is stated as to who had clicked those photographs and how the copies were made nor any certificate u/s 65B IEA was produced nor any witness is examined regarding clicking those photographs and otherwise, also they are not relevant to decision of this case.
25. PW1 in her cross-examination admitted that accused persons came at 09:00 pm on the day of incident and that incident occurred at 1st floor at 09:00 pm and thus, she again corroborated her version in her complaint as well as in her examination-in-chief. PW1 also reiterated that her children were at home at that time, but her devar Sunil was at his factory and accused Preeti had caught hold of her when accused Khushi went upstairs and it is already stated that accused Khushi went upstairs to bring the weapons used in the present case to cause injury to PW1. One pendrive, Ex.PW1/DX1 was produced by accused persons during cross of PW1, which had two audio clips, in which witness identified voice of her daughter Mahek in which she was saying "chacha mummy bol rahi hai, 3-4 din me makan khali kar do" and "mummy bol rahi hai ki, kal court ja rhi hai, aakr unse baat kar lo, to phir baad me bataygi", but she has not named any person in the same and said child has not been State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 12 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:47:52 +0530 examined and source and authenticity of said audio clips has not been established by accused persons and the same are also not relevant to the issue.
One copy of complaint, Ex.PW1/DX2 addressed to SHO Harsh Vihar dt. 13.11.2025 is shown to witness, which she had denied and the same has not been proved by the accused persons as per law and as to by whom, it was made and Ld. Addl. PP had objected the same.
One copy of MoU dt. 20.11.2023, Ex.PW1/DX3 was shown to PW1, who correctly identified her signature on the same, but stated that she had not received any money as stated in the same and its original has not been accounted for, so it cannot be relied upon.
26. In her cross, PW1 admitted that her three children namely Aadi, Mehak and Lakshay were present home at the time of incident and Ld. Counsel for accused contended that none of these children were made witness. Ld. Addl. PP stated that IO had not made them witness as they were minor children, but it is a lapse on the part of IO, however, the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution as PW1 is consistent in her testimony and other statements right from beginning. There are no contradictions in her testimony from her previous statements and she was confronted with the said fact from her statement, Ex.PW1/DX4, but in said statement, it is recorded that there was no person present there except witness, but she has specifically stated that at the spot where PW1 was beaten, there was no one except her and accused persons and it shows that her children State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 13 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:47:57 +0530 might have remained at the ground floor at the time of occurrence after they opened the gate. Nothing material has come in the cross-examination of PW1 to create doubt on the case of prosecution or in her testimony.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2012 SC 3157, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the concept of sterling witness and observed in para-22 as under:-
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness "should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 14 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:48:03 +0530 it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness"
whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged".
28. PW1 is a sterling witness as described in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu (Supra), as she remained consistent from her initial statement till her deposition in Court. Accused persons failed to create any doubt in her cross-examination to doubt her veracity.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
29. PW2 Reena Jain appeared on behalf of Dr. Jai Gupta, who examined patient Kavita and identified his handwriting and signature being worked with him and he was not available for evidence and proved the MLC prepared by Dr. Jai Gupta, Ex.PW2/A wherein, he has mentioned one laceration 3x1 cm on occipital region. In her cross-examination, PW2 admitted that patient was oriented, conscious and fit for statement.
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 15 of 29Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:48:09 +0530
30. PW3 Dr. Ajay Sharma appeared on behalf of Dr. Rutvik Makwana, identified his handwriting and signature being worked with him and he was not available for evidence and proved his opinion on nature of injuries as simple in said MLC, Ex.PW2/A and said witness was not cross-examined by accused persons despite opportunity.
Thus, from the medical evidence, it is proved that there was simple injury with laceration of 3x1 cm on occipital region, caused to injured Kavita.
POLICE WITNESSES
31. PW4 IO/SI Bijendra Singh proved the GD No. 98A, Ex.PA3, which was admitted by accused persons vide which both victim and accused Preeti had visited PS Harsh Vihar on 26.10.2023 and told him about family quarrel. PW4 proved that he recorded the statement of complainant in his handwriting, Ex.PW1/A and rukka, Ex.PW4/A and the site plan at the instance of complainant, Ex.PW1/B. PW4 has corroborated the version of PW1 qua these exhibits.
PW4 has clarified that there was no CCTV camera at the spot and no weapon of offence i.e. danda/rod was recovered from the spot.
During his cross-examination, PW4 clarified that there was no public witness available to record his evidence qua incident and he reiterated that in said site plan, the place of incident is mentioned at point A and nothing has come in his cross-examination to doubt his evidence.
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 16 of 29Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:48:14 +0530
32. PW5 ASI Budhpal Singh had only bound down accused Khushi during further investigation and filed the charge-
sheet.
NON RECOVERY OF WEAPON
33. The weapon used in the offence i.e. iron rod and danda, were not recovered and it is contended by accused persons that the same is fatal to the case of prosecution, but it is settled law that the recovery of weapon is not sine qua non to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, if otherwise reliable evidence is available on record and proved accordingly.
34. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Arjun Singh, (2011) 9 SCC 115, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the non-recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable.
35. In Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr, (2013) 12 SCC 796, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where unimpeachable ocular testimony, supported by medical evidence is available, non-recovery of the weapon of assault is of no advantage to the accused.
36. In Mohinder Vs. State, 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 645, it was held that non-recovery of weapon of offence during investigation is not such an important factor to neutralize the direct evidence of complicity of accused in the murder of the deceased.
37. In Lallan Prasad Sonkar Vs. State of Delhi decided on 05.12.2024, Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of accused in a similar offence, in which there was no recovery of weapon and held that:
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 17 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:48:20 +0530 "As to the non recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. the danda, gainful reference is made to the decision in Aas Mohd. @ Anshu Vs. State, reported as 2021:DHC:4339, wherein this Court has held that mere non recovery of the weapon of offence cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution".
38. In the present case, PW1, who is injured/eye-witness, was consistent as to the date, place and time and the manner of offence in her testimony and complaint, which is corroborated by medical evidence, which remained unimpeachable in the cross- examination of witnesses particularly PW1.
39. It is a settled law that ocular evidence of the victim or the injured is considered the best evidence. In the case titled as State of UP Vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"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 generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant 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 lends 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 not like or want to let his actual assailant 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 the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107], Balraje V. State of State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 18 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:48:27 +0530 Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed V. State of MP [(2010) 10 SCC 259 ; (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262].
40. In case titled as "Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0328/2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India gave observation as to how the testimony of an injured person is to be considered. It was held:-
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:-
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has great evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishment in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
41. The accused persons are charged u/s 308/341/34 IPC. In order to constitute an offence u/s 308 IPC, it is to be proved that the said act was committed by the accused with the intention State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 19 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:48:33 +0530 or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the offence was committed under such circumstances that if the accused, by that act, had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide. The intention or knowledge on the part of the accused, is to be deducted from the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of the body where such injuries were suffered.
42. From the MLC of the victim i.e. PW-1, Ex.PW2/A, the nature of injury is simple in nature. There was only single injury sustained by PW1, which itself is an indication that there was no intention or knowledge present to commit culpable homicide while causing injury to PW1.
43. The iron rod and danda used in the crime, have not been recovered nor the IO had collected the clothes of the injured and had it been done, it would have been a corroborative evidence.
44. In Ved Kumari and Anr. Vs. State & Anr, 96 (2002) DLT 820, it has been held that in order to constitute offence u/s 308 IPC, it must be proved:-
i) That the accused had committed an act,
ii) That the said act was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and,
iii) That the offence was committed under such circumstances, the accused by that act had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide.State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 20 of 29
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:48:40 +0530
45. The intention has to be gathered from the acts committed by the accused and the awareness of the consequences as it is a question of facts. Similar view has been taken in Sunder Vs. State, Manu/DE/0331/2010 and the conviction from section 308 IPC was altered to section 323 IPC.
46. In Raju @ Rajpal and Ors. Vs. State of Delhi, 2014 (3) JCC 1894, Hon'ble Delhi High Court altered the conviction from section 308 IPC to section 323 IPC by holding that nature of injuries were simple and they were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Delhi in Criminal Appeal NO.
17/2011 dt. 20.02.2015, the conviction was altered from section 308 IPC to section 323 IPC considering the simple injuries as opined by the doctor.
47. Recently, in State Vs. Kamlesh Bahadur in Criminal LP No. 515/2019 decided on 12.09.2023, The Hon'ble High Court considered the injuries in the MLC of the complainant i.e.
(i) CLW 8x2x.5 cms over central parieto occipital region.
(ii) Swelling and tenderness right forearm and wrist.
(iii) Abrasion 1x1 cm over right wrist.
The Hon'ble High Court held that the Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 308 IPC as he hit complainant with sariya and again gave a blow with a wooden leg of cot on the vital part of the body i.e. head, but there was no premeditation and incident took place on the spur of the moment and injuries were simple in nature and convicted the accused u/s 323 IPC and not u/s 308 IPC.
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 21 of 29Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:48:47 +0530
48. In this case also, there was no premeditation and incident took place on the spur of the moment when there was dispute regarding late opening of main gate by the children of complainant and the quarrel had taken place on this trivial issue. The injury was not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause her death and even it is not known as to what was the size of the danda or iron rod stated to be used in the crime.
49. The nature of injuries in the present case is single injury to the victim and lacerated wound 3x1 cm on the occipital region caused by danda and iron rod and in the case of Kamlesh Bahadur (supra), the nature of injury was a bit wide and still accused was not convicted u/s 308 IPC. It is doubtful from the case of prosecution that PW1 was hit with iron rod and danda by accused persons with intention or knowledge that by that act, they would commit culpable homicide as the nature of injury is simple in nature which could never have caused death/culpable homicide of the injured.
The ingredients of section 308 IPC are not proved by the prosecution against accused Preeti and Khushi beyond reasonable doubt.
50. From MLC, Ex.PW2/A, it is apparent that accused persons had caused beatings to PW1 Kavita, which caused injury, which are also proved from the ocular testimony of injured PW1, which cannot be brushed aside totally as the evidence of the injured is on the higher pedestal, if accused has failed to create a doubt or the version of eye-witness/injured is totally negated by State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 22 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:49:04 +0530 other evidence.
51. Section 339 IPC. Wrongful Restraint. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Section 34 IPC. Act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.-
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
52. From the testimony of PW1, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons while causing beating to the complainant, had wrongfully restrained her as they did not allow her to go to her flat/house as she had right to proceed in a direction of her house, but she was prevented by accused persons when they caught hold of her. Section 319 IPC. Hurt.-
"Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt".
Section 324 IPC. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.-
"Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 23 of 29 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:49:10 +0530 term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 222 Cr.PC. When offence proved included in offence charged.
"(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it."
53. Since accused Preeti and Khushi were involved in the beating of complainant/PW1, by using iron rod and danda, which are dangerous weapons and they were charged u/s 308/341/34 IPC and since, the higher charge u/s 308/34 IPC has not been proved, they cannot be convicted in the same and as such only offence u/s 324/341/34 IPC is proved against them as they had acted in furtherance of their common intention and section 324 IPC is minor offence and considering the provision of section 222 Cr.PC, they can be convicted for the minor offence, though no formal charge was framed against them u/s 324/34 IPC.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
54. The accused persons have denied the incriminating evidence put to them u/s 351 BNSS (u/s 313 Cr.PC) and stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case due to long property dispute between complainant and accused persons and complainant wants to grab their share from the ancestral property. They had not caused any injury to complainant or any other person.
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 24 of 29Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:49:14 +0530
55. The accused persons have examined one witness in defence namely DW1 Anil Kumar, who deposed that on 26.10.2023, he came from his factory and dropped accused Preeti and Khushi at the place of incident and returned back to his factory. After 20-30 min, he received a call from an unknown person, who told him that there was a dispute at his house and his wife was lying unconscious at the front door of above said house. Thereafter, DW1 reached there and took his wife Preeti and Khushi to PS Harsh Vihar. When DW1 reached PS, he saw that his bhabhi/complainant and her husband were already present there. Police official told him to take them to GTB Hospital. Then, he got conducted medical of his wife Preeti and Khushi and he went back to his home.
56. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, DW1 stated that his wife Preeti and sister-in-law Khushi used to work with him at his factory. DW1 cannot tell the name of caller nor mobile number from which he received a call of dispute at his home as stated above by him. DW1 admitted that he was not an eye- witness of the incident that is why he did not know as to what had happened at the spot and whatever told by his wife Preeti and his sister-in-law Khushi about the incident, he believed them. DW1 stated that when he returned back to his home, his wife was unconscious condition however, his sister-in-law Khushi was conscious, who did not inform him about the incident. DW1 could not state the name of person out of 10-20 persons, who had helped him and his wife to regain her consciousness. DW1 did not lodge any complaint in PS nor produced any medical State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 25 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:49:20 +0530 documents of his wife.
DW1 did not depose anything against the complainant nor provided any reason for the alleged incident nor he could create any doubt in the case of prosecution and as such, his testimony being vague, is not a reliable and deserves to be rejected.
57. There is no proper explanation of false implication of accused persons given by them in their statements u/s 351 BNSS (u/s 313 Cr.PC) and that their defence that the accused persons were falsely implicated due to property dispute with complainant, is neither probable nor plausible as the injury to the complainant from the said incident was proved from her MLC and it may be a the motive to commit offence against complainant.
In view of the discussion above, the evidence led by Prosecution is cogent, trustworthy, consistent, corroborative and inspires confidence qua offences u/s 324/341/34 IPC, which are proved against accused persons.
CONCLUSION
58. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Preeti and Khushi u/s 308/34 IPC, but proved the offence against accused Preeti @ Khushi u/s 324/341/34 IPC.
59. Consequently, the accused Preeti and Khushi are acquitted of the offence u/s 308/34 IPC, but convicted u/s 324/341/34 IPC.
60. Bail bonds cancelled. Surety stands discharged.
State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 26 of 29Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:49:25 +0530
61. Accused persons shall be heard separately on sentence.
62. The charts as per the judgment of Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, (CA No. 2973/2023) of Hon'ble Supreme Court are annexed herewith.
(KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi/20.05.2026 State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 27 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.05.20 14:49:32 +0530 Chart for Witnesses Examined Sl. No. Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witnesses No.
1. PW1 PW1 Kavita Eye-witnesses
2. PW1 PW1 Kavita Witness of last seen circumstances
3. PW2 Dr. Reena Jain Medical Jurist & PW3 Dr. Ajay Sharma
4. PW4 SI Bijendra Singh Investigating & PW5 ASI Budhpal Singh Officer
5. PW1 Kavita Complainant/ First Informant Chart for Exhibited Documents.
Exhibit Description of the Proved by/Attested by No. Exhibit
1. Inquest NA Panchnama/Memo
2. Recovery/ NA Panchnama/Memo
3. Arrest Memo Not arrested
4. Post-mortem Report NA
5. FSL Report NA State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 28 of 29 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:49:37 +0530 Chart for Material Objects Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by Object No.
1. Weapon of offence i.e. Not recovered iron rod and danda
2. Clothing accused/victim NA
3. Mobile Phone/Electronic NA Object
4. Vehicle NA
5. Purse/earrings/identity NA card Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.05.20 14:49:42 +0530 (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi/20.05.2026 State Vs. Preeti & Anr. FIR No. 595/2023 PS Harsh Vihar Page 29 of 29