Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Chand on 9 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01,
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. KOMAL
JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER OF:
1. STATE VS. ROHIT CHAND & ORS.
2. FIR NO. 119/2009, U/S 341/325/34 IPC, PS: PUNJABI BAGH
3. CNR No. DLWT02-000529-2009
4. CIS No. 70486/2016
5. Date of institution : 11.07.2009
6. Date of commission of offence: Night intervening 31.01.2009 / 01.02.2009
7. Name of complainant/injured: Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kunwar Pal Singh
8. Name of accused persons : (i) Rohit Chand S/o Sh. Dal Chand
(ii) Dinesh Kumar @ Dina S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad
(iii) Pankaj @ Pinky S/o Sh. Nanak Chand
9. Offences complained of : U/s 341/325/34 IPC
10.Offences charged of : U/s 325/34 IPC
11. Plea of accused persons : Not guilty and claimed trial
12. Final arguments: 28.07.2025
13. Final Order : Accused acquitted for offence U/s 325 IPC; convicted U/s 323/34
IPC
14. Date of order: 09.04.2026
Argued by:
Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Sh. Sunil Mehta, Ld. Counsel for accused.
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 1 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:01
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
PROSECUTION CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the night intervening
31.01.2009 and 01.02.2009 at about 12:00 midnight, near Mala Ram Park Gate,
Service Lane, Madipur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh, all the
three accused persons, namely Rohit Chand, Dinesh Kumar @ Dina and Pankaj
@ Pinky, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained and
caused grievous injuries to complainant/injured Dinesh Kumar by beating him
with fists, kicks and, as later alleged, by an empty glass bottle. On completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections
341/325/34.
APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED AND TRIAL
2. After filing of charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the
learned Predecessor Court vide order dated 11.07.2009 and summons were issued.
On appearance of the accused persons, compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC was
done.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences under Sections 325/34 IPC was framed against all
the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses.
5. PW-1 Dinesh Kumar (injured/complainant) deposed on 28.10.2010 that on
31.01.2009, he had gone to attend the marriage of his maternal uncle's son at
Madipur, Mala Ram Park. The marriage ceremony was being held in a park with a
tent, and his maternal uncle resided in D Block. At about 12:00 midnight, after the
marriage ceremony was over, he along with one cousin namely Amit was standing
outside Mala Ram Park and was waiting for a TSR. At that time accused Pinky,
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 2 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:08
+0530
present in Court and correctly identified by him, came towards him and slapped
him on his face. When he objected, the other two accused persons, who were
standing beside accused Pinky and who were also present in Court and correctly
identified by him, came towards him and stated, " Thappad mazak me maar diya"
and later they also started slapping him. He tried to save himself, but they did not
stop and all the accused persons gave him continuous fist blows and kicks and
caused hurt to him. Due to the same, he fell on the ground, lost eyesight, could not
see and was hurt by a glass bottle. Thereafter some of his relatives reached the
spot and, after seeing him injured, called the police on number 100. PCR van
reached the spot and took him to SGM Hospital for medical aid. He further
deposed that after medical aid, he was advised to go to Guru Nanak Hospital for
further treatment, but on the same night he came back to his house, and on the
next day in the morning he was taken to Guru Nanak Hospital for further medical
examination. Thereafter, police reached Guru Nanak Hospital and recorded his
statement. He stated that at that time he had injury in his eye and a bandage had
been put on his eyes, and after hearing his statement Ex. PW1/A, which bears his
thumb impression at point A, he affixed his thumb impression thereon. He further
deposed that accused Rohit Chand was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/B bearing
his signature at point A. Remaining examination-in-chief was deferred.
6. PW-1 was recalled on 19.12.2011 for further examination-in-chief. On that
day, he deposed that he had lost the sight of his left eye due to brutal beating by
the accused persons on his left eye by an empty bottle of beer. He stated that he
could not read his statement after it was recorded by the police official because
doctors had prescribed that he should not open both eyes due to the injuries as his
eyes were bandaged at the time of recording of his statement. He further deposed
that after discharge from hospital, the accused persons were arrested by the police
at his instance and police officials made efforts to find out the weapon of offence,
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 3 of 23
Digitally signed
by komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:12
+0530
i.e. bottle, but the same could not be found from the place of incident. At that
stage learned APP submitted that charge required alteration as grievous injuries
were stated to be inflicted by means of a glass bottle, however, MLC was silent
whether the object was even sharp or blunt. Cross-examination was deferred.
7. PW-1 was then recalled for cross-examination on 11.10.2023. In cross-
examination, he stated that since the year 2014, he had been in judicial custody in
a murder case and the deceased in that case was the brother of accused Pankaj. He
deposed that in the year 2009, he had gone near Punjabi Bagh to attend the
marriage of his maternal uncle's son. He had left his house in the evening and
reached the marriage function at night, though he did not remember the exact time
when he reached or left. He did not remember the date of the said marriage. He
stated that the incident took place at about 10:00 PM right outside the place of
marriage. At the time of incident he was with his cousin, namely Amit, and both
were standing and talking. He stated that his mother Gomti had called the police,
though he did not remember the time when the call was made or when the PCR
van came. He deposed that his mother told him that police first took him to Sanjay
Gandhi Hospital. He did not remember who took him or who accompanied him to
the said hospital. He did not remember the time when he reached the hospital and
when he left. He did not remember whether any statement was recorded by police
in the hospital on that day. He then stated that police recorded his statement in
hospital. He could not tell the date of such recording. He stated that he narrated
the facts and police recorded his statement and thereafter he affixed his thumb
impression thereon. He further stated that he was taken to Guru Nanak Hospital
from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by police and he may have been accompanied by his
mother. He did not remember when he was taken there. He further stated that at
least six persons had caused injuries to him, including the three accused persons
present in Court. Further cross-examination was deferred.
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 4 of 23
Digitally signed
by komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:16
+0530
8. PW-1 was again recalled for further cross-examination on 15.10.2024. In
the said cross-examination, he stated that no glass bottle or any broken part
thereof was lifted from the spot. He further stated, "I had not suffered any injury
from glass bottle." He deposed that he was taken to SGM Hospital by PCR
officials. He stated that he had not told the doctors in SGM Hospital that he had
defect in his eye since childhood; voluntarily he stated that he had told the doctors
that some portion of his left eye was white from inside since childhood and the
eyesight of his left eye was not proper. He stated that now he was unable to see
from his left eye. He further stated that he did not come back to his home after
visiting SGM Hospital and that he was sent by the concerned medical officer to
Guru Nanak Hospital. He denied the suggestion that after visiting SGM Hospital
he came back home and on the next morning visited Guru Nanak Hospital;
however he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A from point B to B1
where it was so recorded. He stated that at home he met his family members
including his father, mother, sister and others, but as they were already aware of
the incident he did not specifically tell them about it. He voluntarily added that his
mother had reached the place of incident after knowing about his injury and she
had narrated the incident to the other family members and therefore he did not
narrate the incident specifically to all of them. He also stated that presently he was
behind bars in a murder case of younger brother of accused Pankaj and no other
case except the said murder case was pending against him. He denied the
suggestion that at the relevant time he and his mother were engaged in business of
illicit liquor supply. He denied that he was under the influence of alcohol when he
was taken to SGM Hospital. He admitted that neither he nor his mother had given
any statement to police in SGM Hospital, and voluntarily stated that the complaint
was given by him when he was in Guru Nanak Hospital. He admitted that he was
in conscious state when he was taken to SGM Hospital. He denied the suggestions
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 5 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:20
+0530
that he had advanced filthy words towards the accused persons; that the incident
occurred due to abusive words used by him against them; that he had not
sustained any injury on his left eye in the incident; that no complaint was lodged
immediately because only a minor quarrel took place; and that he was deposing
falsely to falsely implicate the accused persons.
9. PW-2 Amit (eye witness) deposed on 12.07.2011, that on 31.01.2009 he
along with Dinesh went to the marriage ceremony of Tejpal at Mala Ram Park,
Madipur. The marriage ceremony was over at about 12:00 a.m. midnight.
Thereafter he along with Dinesh Kumar came out from the tent where the
ceremony was going on. Outside the tent all the three accused persons, present in
Court and correctly identified by him, were present there. Accused Pinky started
slapping Dinesh Kumar. In the meantime the other co-accused, present in Court,
also started beating Dinesh Kumar with fists and kicks. He further deposed that
the accused persons also beat the complainant Dinesh Kumar by empty bottles on
his face. Thereafter police came at the spot and complainant Dinesh Kumar was
taken to SGM Hospital. Despite opportunity, no cross-examination of PW-2 was
conducted by accused persons.
10. PW-3 Khem Chand (father of bridegroom / alleged witness of surrounding
facts) deposed on 08.09.2014, that about 4-5 years prior, the marriage of his son
was solemnized at Madipur. He initially stated that he did not know anything
about the case. As he was resiling from his earlier statement, learned APP sought
permission to cross-examine him, which was granted. In his cross-examination by
learned APP, PW-3 stated that on 31.01.2009 marriage of his son was solemnized
at Madipur. He stated that he did not know whether any quarrel took place
between accused persons and complainant. He stated that Dinesh Kumar was the
complainant and was friend of his son. He denied the suggestion that any quarrel
took place between accused persons and complainant. He stated that he did not
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 6 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:24
+0530
know whether police came to the place of marriage. He stated that he did not
know whether he made any statement to police. At that stage his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. was shown to him and after going through the same, he stated
that he had not made any statement to police. He denied the suggestion that he
was present at the time of quarrel. He stated that he came to know from
neighbours that complainant Dinesh had suffered injuries in his eyes. When his
attention was drawn towards the accused persons present in Court, he stated that
he knew them, but did not know whether they were the same persons who had
caused injury to the complainant. He denied the suggestions that he had been won
over by the accused persons or had received money to save them.
11. In cross-examination by learned defence counsel, PW-3 stated that it was
correct that all the accused persons were his neighbours and he knew them for the
last 10-15 years. He further stated that police officials of PS Punjabi Bagh had
never enquired from him regarding this case.
12. PW-4 HC Gyan Chand (Duty Officer) deposed on 30.01.2015, that on
13.03.2009 he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as Duty Officer and his duty hours
were from 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. At about 9:30 p.m., Ct. Rakesh brought the
rukka, which had been prepared and sent by HC Ranjit. On the basis thereof he
registered FIR No. 119/09. Copy of FIR was exhibited as Ex. PW4/A bearing his
signature at point A (OSR). He also made endorsement on the rukka, which was
exhibited as Ex. PW4/B bearing his signature at point A. In cross-examination, he
stated that he made endorsement on rukka on 13.03.2009 and signed the same on
the same day.
13. PW-5 Ct. Rakesh deposed on 30.01.2015, that on 13.01.2009, he was
posted at PP Madipur, PS Punjabi Bagh as constable and on that day he joined
investigation with HC Ranjit Singh. According to him, he along with HC Ranjit
Singh went to the place of occurrence, i.e. Inderpuri. After reaching there, HC
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 7 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:28
+0530
Ranjit Singh handed over the original rukka to him for registration of FIR.
Accordingly, he went to the PS to get FIR registered. After some time, he came
back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Ranjit.
He further deposed that on 15.03.2009 accused Pankaj @ Pinki, present in Court
and correctly identified by him, visited the police station along with his father
Nanak Chand. Thereafter he prepared the identification memo of the spot Ex.
PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on 07.04.2009
accused Dinesh and Rohit visited the police station and IO arrested both of them.
IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Dinesh Kumar, present in Court and
correctly identified by him, which is Ex. PW5/B bearing his signature at point A.
Thereafter IO recorded his statement. In cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he
did not remember at what time he along with HC Ranjit reached the spot and they
went there by a private vehicle. He did not remember the registration number of
the vehicle or to whom it belonged. He stated that HC Ranjit handed over the
original rukka to him at Inderpuri. After reaching the residence of accused Pankaj,
they met only his father. They remained at his house for about 15 minutes. He did
not know whether IO enquired from neighbours of the accused. He stated that IO
handed over documents pertaining to the case to father of accused, but he did not
know whether IO obtained any signatures from him. He did not remember the
time when he came back to PS. He remained at PS for about one hour. After
registration of FIR, he again came back to the spot within about 20 minutes. HC
Ranjit and father of accused were already present there. He further stated that IO
arrested accused Dinesh, Pankaj and Rohit in his presence; however, at the time of
arrest, IO did not obtain his signatures on arrest memos. He stated that IO
recorded his statement at the police station. He admitted that in the confession
statement of accused Dinesh, his name was mentioned as Ct. Rajesh Kumar. He
further stated that handwriting on Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B were different and
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 8 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:33
+0530
in different ink. He stated that IO recorded his statement twice or thrice. He
denied the suggestions that he had not joined investigation or that accused were
not arrested in his presence.
14. PW-6 HC Bahadur Singh (formal witness of further investigation) deposed
on 04.11.2016 that on 28.06.2009, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as constable.
On that day further investigation of the present case was handed over to him and
he filed the charge-sheet in the Court. He was not cross-examined despite
opportunity.
15. PW-7 HC Ranjeet (Investigating Officer) deposed on 04.11.2016, that on
01.02.2009, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as constable. He received DD No.
2 regarding quarrel near Malaram house. He along with Ct. Rakesh reached the
spot, but no quarrel was found there and no call was received from the hospital,
therefore he marked DD No. 2 as untraced. He further deposed that on 03.02.2009
he received DD No. 26 from the hospital regarding admission of injured Dinesh
Kumar. He reached the hospital and obtained the MLC of Dinesh Kumar, in which
injured was fit for statement. He recorded his statement, already Ex. PW1/A,
bearing his signature at point B. He requested the doctor to give opinion on the
MLC. He further stated that on 13.03.2009, doctor gave opinion on the MLC.
Thereafter he prepared rukka, already Ex. PW4/B, bearing his signature at point B
and handed over the same to Ct. Rakesh for registration of FIR. Ct. Rakesh went
to PS from the spot, got FIR registered and came back to the spot along with copy
of FIR, Ex. PW4/A and original rukka and handed them over to him. He prepared
site plan at the instance of complainant, which is Ex. PW7/A bearing his signature
at point A. He gave notice to accused Pankaj @ Pinki on 14.03.2009 and on the
next day arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/B bearing his signature at point
B. He also prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused Pinki, which is
already Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point B. Personal search of accused
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 9 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:37
+0530
Pankaj was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/C bearing his signature at point A.
PW-7 further deposed that on 07.04.2009, he arrested other two accused, namely
Dinesh Kumar and Rohit Chand, vide arrest memos Ex. PW7/D and Ex. PW1/B
respectively, both bearing his signature. Personal search memos of these two
accused were Ex. PW7/E and Ex. PW7/F respectively, both bearing his signature
at point A. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Dinesh, already Ex.
PW5/B bearing his signature at point B. He also proved MLC of injured as Ex.
PW7/G. He correctly identified all accused persons in Court and stated that they
were released on police bail. Thereafter he was transferred and further
investigation was conducted by second IO. Despite opportunity, no cross-
examination of PW-7 was conducted.
16. PW-8 Dr. P.C. Prabhakar (medical witness from SGM Hospital) deposed on
05.01.2018, that he had been working at SGM Hospital since 2005 and had
worked with Dr. Kumar Abhishek in official capacity and could identify his
handwriting and signatures. MLC of complainant/injured patient namely Mr.
Dinesh bearing no. 1148 was shown to him, and he identified signatures of Dr.
Kumar Abhishek at point A on the said MLC, already Ex. PW7/G. As per the
MLC, patient Dinesh was brought to hospital with alleged history of physical
assault. On local examination, fresh abrasion was present between the thumb and
index finger of right hand, on the nose and on the face below right eye. There was
conjunctival hemorrhage in left eye and there was history of decreased vision in
left eye since childhood. No cross-examination was conducted despite
opportunity.
17. PW-9 Dr. Vidula (from Guru Nanak Eye Centre) deposed on 20.07.2018
that she had been working in the said hospital since January 2018 and had been
deputed by the Medical Superintendent to appear on behalf of Dr. Lanalyn Yadav.
However, she could not identify the signatures of Dr. Lanalyn Yadav as she had
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 10 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:41
+0530
not worked with him. No effective evidence proving any record from Guru Nanak
Eye Centre came through this witness. She was not cross-examined despite
opportunity.
18. PW-10 Dr. Binay Kumar deposed on 17.05.2019, that he had been deputed
by MS, SGM Hospital, Delhi to identify signatures of Dr. Lanalyn Yadav on MLC
No. 1148/09, but he could not identify the said signatures as he had not worked
with him. Thus, PW-10 also failed to prove the signatures or opinion of Dr.
Lanalyn Yadav. No effective medical evidence regarding grievous hurt or final
opinion came on record through him. He was not cross-examined despite
opportunity.
19. Additional circumstance regarding medical opinion: The record further
reveals from order dated 11.11.2019, that Dr. Binay Kumar from SGM Hospital
was present and he filed report of CMO stating that no doctor by the name of Dr.
Lanalyn Yadav had ever worked in the hospital since 2005. In view of the said
order and the testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10, the alleged grievous injury opinion
attributed to Dr. Lanalyn Yadav remained unproved on record.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
20. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons to which they
denied all allegations and stated that the witnesses were interested witnesses and
were deposing falsely against them. They stated that the case was false, that they
had been falsely implicated at the behest of the complainant and his relatives, and
that they were innocent. They did not wish to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. Learned Addl. PP for the State argued that the testimony of injured witness
PW-1 and eye witness PW-2 clearly establishes that the accused persons assaulted
the complainant together and caused injuries to him, and accordingly, the
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 11 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:46
+0530
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it was prayed that
the accused persons be convicted.
22. Per contra, learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that there are material
contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 on the time and manner of occurrence. It
was pointed out that PW-1 first stated that the incident occurred at 12:00
midnight, but later stated that it occurred at about 10:00 PM; first he claimed that
he came back home after SGM Hospital and went to Guru Nanak Hospital next
morning, but later denied the same; first he alleged bottle injury and loss of
eyesight due to the accused, but later clearly stated that he had not suffered injury
from glass bottle; and medical evidence itself records decreased vision in left eye
since childhood. It was further argued that no weapon of offence was recovered,
no bottle or broken pieces were seized, no independent public witness was joined,
and the FIR was registered belatedly on 13.03.2009 in respect of an alleged
incident dated 31.01.2009/01.02.2009. It was thus argued that grievous hurt is not
proved and even the basic prosecution story is doubtful.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
23. The following points arise for determination:
i. Whether on the night intervening 31.01.2009 and 01.02.2009 at or
near Mala Ram Park Gate, Service Lane, Madipur, Delhi, the accused
persons, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the
complainant Dinesh Kumar and caused hurt to him?
ii. Whether prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
injuries caused to injured Dinesh Kumar were grievous in nature so as to
attract Section 325 IPC?
iii. Whether the prosecution has proved the charges under Sections
325/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 12 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:50
+0530
iv. If grievous hurt is not proved, whether the accused persons can still
be convicted for the lesser offence of voluntarily causing hurt so as to
attract Section 323 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC?
DISCUSSION OF LAW, LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND APPRECIATION OF
EVIDENCE
24. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing
evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove
its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any
benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused.
Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the
version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the
prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of
criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the
prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
25. In Rama Kant Rai v. Madan Rai 2003 (8) Scale 243 it has been ruled that a
person has no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is
not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Though this standard is a higher standard, there is however, no absolute standard.
What degree of probability amounts to proof is an exercise particular to each case.
Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract
speculation. Law cannot afford any favourites other than truth. To constitute
reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must
be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from
the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A
reasonable doubt is not a imaginary, trivial or a merely possible; but a fair doubt
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 13 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:54
+0530
based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the
case. The concepts or probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously, be
expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of
such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable
subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum
of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analyze, rest on a robust common
sense and, ultimately on the trained intuition of judge. While the protection given
by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same
time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of
administration of criminal justice. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice
according to law. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that
no innocent man is punished. Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. Both are his public duties. Per Viscount Simon in Stirland Vs. Director of
Public Prosecution, 1994 AC (PC), 315 quoted in State of UP Vs Anil Singh JT,
1988 (3) SC 491; AIR 1988 SC 1998. In Visveswarn V. State 2003 Rajdhani Law
Reporter 350 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that in a criminal
trial duty of the courts is not to let off criminals on petty discrepancies and minor
contradictions. They must show responsibility. Ground realities must be
appreciated. Accused persons are not to be allowed the benefit of defective
investigation. Prosecution lapses cannot be allowed to become escape of
criminals. If there is sufficient proof of guilt by border probability, court must
ignore technical objections.
26. Further, in Sujeet Biswas v. State, on 28.5.2013, it was decided by the
honorable Supreme Court, that;
"6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the
place of proof, and there is a large difference between
something that `may be' proved, and something that
`will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 14 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:37:59
+0530
how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take
place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental
distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large,
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In
a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere
conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal
proof. The large distance between `may be' true and
`must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent
and unimpeachable evidence produced by the
prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a
convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied.
In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance
between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court
must maintain the vital distance between mere
conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the
touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based
upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all
features of the case, as well as the quality and
credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court
must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and
if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then
the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused,
keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an
imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair
doubt that is based upon reason and common sense:"
27. The accused persons, in the case at hand, are charged for the offences
punishable under section 325/34 IPC. To bring home guilt under Section 325 IPC,
the prosecution is required to prove that grievous hurt, as defined under Section
320 IPC, was voluntarily caused by the accused. For application of Section 34
IPC, common intention and participation of accused persons in furtherance of
such common intention must be established.
28. At the outset, let reproduce the relevant provisions of Sections applicable in
the present case as herein below:-
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 15 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:38:04
+0530
325 IPC. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.-Whoever,
except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, and fine-Cognizable Bailable-
Triable by any Magistrate Compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused
with the permission of the court.
320 IPC. Grievous hurt. The following kinds of hurt only are designated
as "grievous":-
First. -Emasculation.
Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
Fourthly.- Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member
or joint.
Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly.- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be
during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to
follow his ordinary pursuits. (20 days)
34 IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention.-When a criminal al 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.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 16 of 23
Digitally signed
by komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:38:09
+0530
29. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses in order to prove its case. The
witnesses, i.e. PW-1 is the injured himself, PW-2 is the eye witness and PW-8 is
the Doctor, are the most material witnesses in this case. PW-1 is the injured
himself whose testimony is in resonance with the testimony of the eye-witness
examined as PW-2 to the material facts and circumstances of the present case.
PW-3 did not support the prosecution on the actual occurrence and is a hostile
witness to the extent of material facts. PW-4 proved the formal registration of
FIR. The testimony of PW-5, who accompanied the IO/PW-7 during the
investigation, shows substantial inconsistencies even about dates and place of
occurrence, as he mentioned 13.01.2009 and place of occurrence as Inderpuri.
PW-6 is the subsequent IO whose role was limited only to the extent of filing the
charge-sheet. PW-7 is the IO who deposed regarding the procedural steps taken in
the aftermath of the alleged incident and is not an eye-witness. PW-8 proved the
MLC only to the extent of identifying handwriting/signatures of the Dr. Kumar
Abhishek who prepared it and the contents showing simple visible injuries and
pre-existing decreased vision in left eye since childhood. PW-9 and PW-10
appeared on behalf of Dr. Lanalyn Yadav who gave final opinion as grievious
injury and had deposed that they could not identify the signatures of Dr. Lanalyn
Yadav as they had not worked with him.
30. PW-1 has identified all the accused persons in the court and alleged assault
to them. PW-1 has deposed that he had gone to attend the marriage of his maternal
uncle's son at Mala Ram Park and after the marriage ceremony was over, while he
was standing outside the park with his cousin Amit, accused Pankaj @ Pinky first
slapped him and thereafter the other two accused persons joined him and all of
them gave him fists, blows and kicks. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted
as he himself sustained injuries in the incident.
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 17 of 23
Digitally signed
by komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:38:14
+0530
31. The version of PW-1 is also supported from PW-2 Amit, who was present
with him at the relevant time. PW-2 has deposed that after the marriage ceremony,
he along with Dinesh came out from the tent and found all three accused persons
outside. He deposed that accused Pankaj @ Pinky started slapping Dinesh and in
the meantime the other co-accused also started beating Dinesh by fists and kicks.
PW-2 further stated that accused persons also beat Dinesh by empty bottles on his
face.
32. It is observed that no cross-examination of PW-2 was conducted by the
accused persons despite opportunity and thus his testimony remained unrebutted
and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
33. Thus, the factum of occurrence and the participation of all three accused
persons in the assault upon PW-1 stands proved from the consistent ocular
testimony of PW-1 and unrebutted testimony of PW-2.
34. Now the question remains to be proved is whether the accused persons
assaulted and inflicted injury to the complainant and the nature of injury. Apart
from the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, in order to prove the same,
prosecution has relied upon the MLC bearing Ex.PW-7/G, prepared by Dr. Kumar
Abhishek and Dr. Lanalyn Yadav. PW-8 Dr. P.C. Prabhakar proved the MLC Ex.
PW7/G after identifying the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Kumar Abhishek.
He deposed that as per the MLC, patient Dinesh was brought to the hospital with
alleged history of physical assault and that the MLC records fresh abrasion
between thumb and index finger of the right hand, on the nose and on the face
below right eye. He further deposed that it also records conjunctival hemorrhage
in left eye and history of decreased vision in left eye since childhood.
35. Thus, PW-8 duly proves that PW-1 had indeed suffered injuries in a
physical assault and that he was medically examined in SGM Hospital by Dr.
Kumar Abhishek.
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 18 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:38:17
+0530
36. The testimony of PW-1 that PCR had removed him to the hospital also
stands corroborated from the unrebutted deposition of PW-2 and the fact that
PW-7 obtained DD No.2 regarding occurrence of the said incident. Therefore,
there remains no doubt that PW-1 had sustained injuries in the incident in question
and that the said injuries were caused in the assault by the accused persons.
37. Now coming to the question whether the prosecution has proved grievous
hurt within the meaning of Section 320 IPC so as to sustain conviction under
Section 325 IPC. The prosecution had relied upon a subsequent medical opinion
allegedly given by Dr. Lanalyn Yadav to the effect that nature of injury was
grievous. The MLC Ex.PW-7/G indicates a noting that the "nature of injury" was
"grievous injury" and mentions scleral rupture. However, the said opinion could
not be proved in accordance with law during trial.
38. PW-9 Dr. Vidula, who was deputed to appear on behalf of Dr. Lanalyn
Yadav, had stated that she could not identify his signatures as she had never
worked with him. Similarly, PW-10 Dr. Binay Kumar also stated that he could not
identify the signatures of Dr. Lanalyn Yadav as he had not worked with him.
Therefore, neither PW-9 nor PW-10 could prove the opinion attributed to Dr.
Lanalyn Yadav.
39. Further, the order dated 11.11.2019 on record further shows that Dr. Binay
Kumar from SGM Hospital filed a report of the CMO stating that no doctor by the
name of Dr. Lanalyn Yadav had ever worked in the hospital since 2005. This
circumstance casts further doubt on the authenticity and proof of the alleged
opinion of grievous injury.
40. With regard to the allegation that due to the said assault he suffered
conjunctival hemorrhage in his left eye which led to permanent privation of his
sight qua that eye, there is no documentary evidence which attributed the same to
the incident at hand. PW-8 in his deposition stated that conjunctival hemorrhage
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 19 of 23 Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:38:22
+0530
in the left eye of the patient is mentioned in the MLC prepared by Dr. Kumar
Abhishek. However, it is observed that there is no mention whether the stated
conjunctival hemorrhage is freshly occurred or not. Even otherwise, neither the
deposition of PW-8 nor the MLC to the extent of Dr. Kumar Abhishek establishes
that the said conjunctival hemorrhage may led to permanent privation of the sight
in the allegedly affected eye. Further, the MLC proved by PW-8 itself records that
there was history of decreased vision in left eye since childhood.
41. Thus, no doctor from Guru Nanak Eye Centre or from any subsequent
treatment was properly examined to prove that the complainant suffered
permanent privation of sight or any other grievous hurt as a result of the incident.
Therefore, there is no legally admissible expert evidence available on record to
show that the complainant lost vision due to assault in the present incident.
42. In absence of cogent and duly proved medical evidence connecting the
alleged assault with loss of eyesight, it can not be hold that the prosecution has
proved grievous hurt beyond reasonable doubt especially when when medical
record notes decreased vision since childhood.
43. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
grievous hurt, within the meaning of Section 320 IPC, was caused in the present
incident and thus failed to establish the offence under Section 325 IPC beyond
reasonable doubt.
44. Accordingly, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt so far
as the charge under Section 325 IPC is concerned.
45. Now coming to the fourth and last point of determination, i.e. whether
lesser offence under Section 323 IPC can be made out or not in the present case.
46. At this stage, it becomes relevant to refer to Section 222 Cr.P.C., which
permits conviction for a minor offence when a person is charged with a major
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 20 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:38:26
+0530
offence but the facts proved reduce it to a minor offence. The provision of Section
222 Cr.PC along-with illustrations and comments is reproduced as herein below:-
"222. 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.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt
to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any
minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect
of that minor offence have not been satisfied.
Illustrations
(a) A is charged under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) with
criminal breach of trust in respect of property entrusted to him as a carrier. It appears,
that he did commit criminal breach of trust under section 406 of that Code in respect of
the property, but that it was not entrusted to him as a carrier. He may be convicted of
criminal breach of trust under the said section 406.
(b) A is charged under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), with
causing grievous hurt. He proves that he acted on grave and sudden provocation. He
may be convicted under section 335 of that Code.
COMMENTS
(i) If an accused is charged of a major offence but is not found guilty thereunder,
he can be convicted of minor offence, if the facts established indicate that such minor
offence has been committed; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutta, AIR 2000 SC
297.
(ii) Court is entitled to convict a person of an offence which is minor in
comparison to the one for which he is tried; Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of Andiıra
Pradesh, (1997) 4 Supreme 214."
47. In the case at hand, Section 323 IPC is clearly a minor offence in relation to
Section 325 IPC, as both offences relate to voluntarily causing hurt, the distinction
being only in the gravity or nature of the injury. Therefore, once grievous hurt is
not proved but simple hurt if proved, the Court is fully empowered under Section
222 Cr.P.C. to convict the accused for the lesser offence under Section 323 IPC.
48. The ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly proves that the accused
persons jointly beat PW-1 by slaps, fists and kicks. The medical evidence proved
by PW-8 establishes fresh abrasions and conjunctival haemorrhage. Thus, the
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 21 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:38:31
+0530
prosecution has fully proved that bodily pain and injuries were caused to PW-1 by
the accused persons.
49. The role of all three accused persons has come consistently in the
testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. Accused Pankaj @ Pinky initiated the assault by
slapping the complainant and immediately thereafter the other two accused joined
him and collectively assaulted PW-1. Their acts were simultaneous, concerted and
directed against the same victim. Thus, the act of causing hurt to PW-1 was
committed by all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention
and Section 34 IPC stands proved.
50. The defence has relied upon certain contradictions in the testimony of PW-1
regarding exact time of incident, number of assailants, movement between
hospitals and injury by bottle. In the considered opinion of this Court, these
contradictions do create doubt with respect to the exact weapon used and the
precise extent or nature of ultimate injury, and therefore they support the
conclusion that grievous hurt is not proved beyond doubt. However, these
contradictions do not demolish the basic substratum of the prosecution case, that
PW-1 was assaulted by the present accused persons outside the marriage venue
and sustained injuries in that incident.
51. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in testimony recorded after a long
lapse of time. The core version regarding assault by the accused persons remains
unchanged and stands fully corroborated by PW-2 and by the MLC proved
through PW-8. Therefore, these contradictions do not help the accused persons to
the extent of total acquittal, though they do entitle them to acquittal on the graver
charge under Section 325 IPC.
CONCLUSION
52. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has successfully proved
that PW-1 Dinesh Kumar sustained injuries caused during assault by the the three
State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 22 of 23
Digitally
signed by
komal
komal Date:
2026.04.09
16:38:35
+0530
accused persons, namely Rohit Chand, Dinesh Kumar @ Dina and Pankaj @
Pinky in furtherance of their common intention. However, the prosecution has
failed to prove the alleged grievous injury opinion attributed to Dr. Lanalyn Yadav
in view of the testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 and the report referred to in order
dated 11.11.2019 stating that no doctor by that name had worked in the hospital
since 2005.
53. Accordingly, offence under Section 325/34 IPC is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt, however, the ingredients of lesser offence under Section 323/34
IPC stand fully established.
ORDER
54. Accordingly, accused persons, namely, Rohit Chand, Dinesh Kumar @ Dina, and Pankaj @ Pinky, are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt. However, all the aforesaid accused persons are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
Digitally Announced in open Court signed by komal on :09.04.2026 komal Date:
2026.04.09 16:38:40 (KOMAL) +0530 Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 West District/THC/New Delhi/ 09.04.2026 Note: This judgment contains 23 (twenty three) pages and each page has been checked and signed by me. Digitally signed by komal komal Date:
2026.04.09 (KOMAL) 16:38:46 +0530 Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 West District/THC/ 09.04.2026 State Vs. Rohit Chand & Ors. FIR No. 119/09 PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 23 of 23