Delhi District Court
State vs Geeta Devi on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST
TRACK COURT), SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURT, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Sharad Gupta
Sessions Case No. 261/2017
CNR No. DLSW01-004766-2017
FIR No. : 1361/2015
Police Station : Dabri
Under Section : 308 IPC
In the matter of:
State
Vs.
Geeta Devi,
W/o Sh. Hari Singh,
R/o RZM-118, Vijay Enclave,
New Delhi.
Date of institution : 27.01.2017
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 25.04.2017
Date of receipt by way of transfer : 19.09.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 19.09.2025
Date of judgment : 27.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, accused Geeta Devi is being SHARAD convicted for the offence punishable under Section 308 of the GUPTA Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'), in the Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 1 of 23 Date: 2025.09.27 17:23:34 +0530 instant case FIR No. 1361/2015 Police Station Dabri, New Delhi for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.2015, at about 06.30 pm, at the shop of the complainant situated at H. No. RZ L-57, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi, the accused Ms. Geeta Devi caused injuries on the head of injured Mr. Janardhan Gupta by hitting him on his head with a jar with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, she would have caused the death of Mr. Janardhan Gupta, she would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
3. The circumstances which had put the criminal investigating machinery into motion are that on 26.10.2015, on receipt of DD no. 44 A, ASI Anand Parkash alongwith Ct. Satish reached at the spot i.e. RZ M-118, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi, where on inquiry, he came to know that the injured had already been shifted to DDU hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. IO alongwith Ct. Satish reached at DDU Hospital where the injured Mr. Janardhar Gupta was found admitted vide MLC no. 9480/2015. The doctor had declared the patient fit for statement. IO recorded the statement of Mr. Janardhan Gupta wherein he alleged that following a quarrel, accused Geeta Devi had caused injuries to him on his head with a glass jar. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the instant FIR was registered U/s SHARAD 324 IPC. Further investigation was assigned to ASI Anand GUPTA Prakash, who prepared site plan, recorded the statements of Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA Date: 2025.09.27 State Vs. Geeta Devi 17:23:56 +0530 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 2 of 23 witnesses and seized the exhibits from the spot. Efforts were made to apprehend the accused. After discussion with the senior officials, Section 324 IPC was converted into Section 308 IPC. Accused Geeta Devi was formally arrested in this case as she was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. In light of the police report and the documents filed alongwith the same, cognizance was taken vide order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.PC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 25.04.2017, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.
6. The case was received by way of transfer by this Court on 19.09.2022.
CHARGE
7. Vide order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the learned Predecessor of this court, charge for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE SHARAD 8. The prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses to GUPTA prove the allegations levelled against the accused.
Digitally signed bySHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi
Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 3 of 23
17:24:04 +0530
9. PW-1 W.Ct. Poonam is a witness to the formal arrest of accused Ms. Geeta Devi.
10. PW-2 Mr. Janardhan Gupta is the injured/complainant in the present case. His testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
11. PW-3 SI Suresh Kumar is the Duty Officer who had registered the FIR of this case, made his endorsement on the rukka and gave the certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
12. PW-4 HC Om Prakash is the part IO of the case who had merely received the file of the case from the MHC(R) and since the investigation was already complete, he had filed the charge-sheet in the court.
13. PW-5 Ms. Sumitra Devi is the wife of the injured/complainant Mr. Janardhan Gupta. Her testimony in detail shall also be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
14. PW-6 Ct. Satish Kumar had joined the investigation of this case with the IO.
15. PW-7 SI Anand Prakash is the investigation officer of this case. He was examined to prove the investigation conducted.
16. PW-8 Ms. Radha Gupta is the daughter of the complainant/injured. She is also an eye witness of the incident. SHARAD Her testimony in detail shall also be discussed in the later part of GUPTA this judgment.
Digitally signedby SHARAD State Vs. Geeta Devi
GUPTA FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 4 of 23
Date: 2025.09.27
17:24:11 +0530
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
17. Vide order dated 13.12.2023, in compliance with the provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., accused Geeta Devi was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of DD no. 44 A dated 26.10.2015, MLC no. 9480 of injured Mr. Janardhan Gupta dated 26.10.2015 and the copy of the MLC no. 9480 bearing the opinion regarding the nature of injury which were admitted by the accused and in view of the admissions made, the evidence of the concerned witnesses were dispensed with.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
18. In her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused took the defence of bald denial. She stated that she was innocent and was falsely implicated in this case by police at the instance of the complainant.
19. Accused Geeta Devi opted not to lead any evidence in her defence.
20. The record has been carefully perused. The respective submissions of Mr. Girish Kumar Manhas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Mr. Radhika Prasad Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Mr. Prince Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused have been duly considered.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS SHARAD 21. To bring home the guilt of the accused in respect of GUPTA the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 5 of 23 Date: 2025.09.27 17:24:19 +0530 was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Geeta Devi had hit the complainant/injured Mr. Janadharn Gupta on his head with a glass jar, with such intention or knowledge that if by the said act, Mr. Janardhan Gupta had died, she would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
22. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses, out of whom three witnesses viz. PW-2 Mr. Janardhan Gupta (the complainant himself), PW-5 Ms. Sumitra Devi (wife of the complainant and an eye witness of the incident) and PW-8 Ms. Radha Gupta (daughter of the complainant and another eye witness of the incident) are the only material witnesses, so far as the incident is concerned. Therefore, it is the testimonies of these three witnesses which are required to be appreciated in order to reach at a fair conclusion.
23. PW-1 Mr. Janardhan Gupta, who is the injured as well as the complainant in the present case, while appearing in the witness box deposed that he had been residing and running a grocery shop at RZL-57, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi for the last about 15-20 years. He stated that on 26.10.2015, at about 6.30 p.m, when he alongwith his wife Smt. Sumitra was sitting on his shop, accused Geeta Devi, who was his neighbor, came to his shop and started quarreling and abusing his wife Smt. Sumitra. He added that hot altercation started between his wife and accused Geeta and he tried to pacify both of them, but accused Geeta Devi continued hurling abuses to his wife. He stated that in SHARAD the meantime, his daughter Radha also came there and she also GUPTA tried to intervene and pacify the matter but accused started Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 6 of 23 17:24:25 +0530 scuffling with his wife and daughter. He asserted that accused Geeta Devi forcibly entered his shop and picked up a big glass jar containing namkeen and had hit the same on his head uttering "aaj kisi ko nahi chhorungi". He stated that blood started oozing out from his head and his shirt got soaked in his blood. He averred that someone dialed at 100 number, PCR Officials reached at the spot and took him to DDU Hospital where he was medically treated and 7 stitches were put on his head. PW-2 deposed that the IO recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A and that he had shown the place of occurrence to the IO who prepared site plan Ex.PW2/B. As per PW-2, the police officials had seized the broken glass jar vide memo Ex.PW2/C after converting it into a sealed pulanda.
24. The testimony of injured/PW-2 Mr. Janardhan Gupta has been corroborated on all material particulars by PW-8 Ms. Radha Gupta, his daughter who also happened to be an eye witness of the incident. While appearing in the witness box, PW- 8 deposed that on 26.10.2015, she was present at the residential house of her parents, where she usually used to remain present from morning to evening, when her husband used to go for his work. She added that on that day, she was inside the house, when she heard some noises and went to the shop which was in the same premises where she saw that accused Geeta was having an altercation with her father Shri Janardan Gupta and her mother Smt. Sumitra. She asserted that she tried to intervene asking as to why she was quarrelling and requested her to remain calm but she (accused Geeta) was not refraining herself. She added that SHARAD accused Geeta Devi picked up one jar lying on the counter of the GUPTA Digitally signed State Vs. Geeta Devi by SHARAD FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 7 of 23 GUPTA Date: 2025.09.27 17:24:33 +0530 shop and struck it on the head of her father. She averred that the jar fell down and broke and blood started oozing out from the head of her father. She deposed that someone called to police, which came to the spot and took her father to hospital.
25. In order to prove its case, prosecution has also examined PW-5 Ms. Sumitra Devi, wife of the complainant/injured and also an eye witness of the incident. PW- 5 Ms. Sumitra deposed in the court that she is a homemaker whereas her husband runs a grocery shop from their house. She stated that she is illiterate and did not remember the exact date. She, however, added that it was in the year 2015 when on one day, her husband and she herself were present at their shop, when accused Geeta Devi, who used to reside near their house and used to buy grocery from their shop started quarreling with her. She added that her husband intervened in the said quarrel and she went to the other room. She further deposed that she heard the noises of her husband and when she returned to the shop, she saw that her husband was bleeding from his head. She asserted that her husband told her that Geeta Devi had struck him with a glass jar of namkeen which was lying on the counter of the shop itself. PW-5, however, in continuity changed her version by again deposing that she was about to go to her room when Geeta Devi had struck her husband on his head with the said glass jar and that she had seen her striking him (her husband) with the said glass jar. She added that the glass jar broke. Her daughter Radha was also there. She asserted that the police also came to the spot SHARAD and took her husband to the hospital. GUPTA 26. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 8 of 23 Date: 2025.09.27 17:24:41 +0530 while appearing in the witness box, the PW-2, PW-5 and PW-8 have materially improved their versions and there are various contradictions in their testimonies which are sufficient to prove that their testimonies are not creditworthy. It is argued that while PW-2 stated that the police officials had seized the namkeen and later on volunteered that the namkeen alongwith the jar were seized by the police officials, as per record, the namkeen was never seized and only the broken pieces of the glass jar were seized during investigation of this case. That while assertion of PW-2 was that his wife and daughter saw the entire incident, PW- 5 wife of PW-2 flip-flopped as to whether she had seen the incident or not. That while the assertion of PW-2 was that the quarrel was caused as the accused claimed that he had given wrong articles to her children, assertion of PW-5 was that the dispute was on the issue of grocery items and money taken for the same. It is further asserted that while as per PW-6 Ct. Satish, he alongwith PW-7 had reached at the spot at about 06.45/6.50 pm, as per PW-7 SI Anand Prakash, he alongwith PW-6 had reached at the spot at about 07.00 pm. That as per PW-8, police officials had reached at the spot 15 minutes after the incident. That as per the rukka, the incident had happened on 26.10.2015 at about 06.30 pm.
27. It is argued that while as per PW-2, many persons gathered at the spot of incident, as per PW-5, three-four persons gathered at the spot of incident. That while as per PW-2 entire gali residents were present at the time of the incident, PW-5 SHARAD stated that she did not remember the names of the persons who GUPTA had gathered at the spot.
Digitally signed by SHARADGUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi
Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 9 of 23
17:24:48 +0530
28. It is also argued that the presence of PW-8 Ms. Radha Gupta at the spot is highly suspicious as in the complaint Ex.PW2/A, the complainant has not claimed that his daughter was also present at the spot or that she had also intervened in the said quarrel.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the contradictions as pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-8 are minor in nature and are bound to occur due to lapse of time between the actual incident and the date of recording of testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses. He has added that even otherwise, the said contradictions do not even go to the very root of the case and therefore can be safely ignored.
30. Before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to refer to the settled preposition of law on this point. In the judgment titled as Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2012) 10 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"......30. This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the discrepancies or improvements which do not materially affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the prosecution. The courts may not concentrate too much on such discrepancies or improvements. The purpose is to primarily and clearly sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Where it does not affect the core of the prosecution case, such discrepancy should not be attached undue significance. The normal course of human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident, SHARAD there may occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even in law render credential to the GUPTA depositions. The improvements or variations must Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 10 of 23 17:24:55 +0530 essentially relate to the material particulars of the prosecution case. The alleged improvements and variations must be shown with respect to material particulars of the case and the occurrence. Every such improvement, not directly related to the occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the testimony of a witness. The credibility of a definite circumstance of the prosecution case cannot be weakened with reference to such minor or insignificant improvements. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 5 SCC 724 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 740], Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546], Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 2 SCC 205 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 323] and Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 5 SCC 100 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 961]."
31. Furthermore, in the judgment titled as Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat reported as (1983) 3 SCC 217, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
".........We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned Counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies". The reasons are obvious :
"(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprised.
The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
SHARAD (3) The powers of observation differ from person to GUPTA person. What one may notice, another may not. An Digitally signed State Vs. Geeta Devi by SHARAD FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 11 of 23 GUPTA Date: 2025.09.27 17:25:03 +0530 object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess-work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him -- Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment".
32. The law is thus well settled that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses cannot be annexed with undue importance. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable SHARAD evidence. Furthermore, one cannot come across a witness whose GUPTA evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishments.
Digitally signed by SHARADGUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi
FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 12 of 23
Date: 2025.09.27
17:25:10 +0530
Court can sift the chaff from corn and find out truth from the testimony of witnesses. Evidence is to be considered from the point of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, and the witnesses are found to be trustworthy, their evidence ought to inspire confidence in mind of the court.
33. Also, it is to be seen that ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately after lapse of time the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or can mix up sequence or particulars of events when interrogated later on. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the somber court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by the defence counsel and out of nervousness can mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. It is to be observed that the sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates by embellishing or embroidering details on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment perhaps due to over-anxiety and the witness may give slightly exaggerated account. However, the same would not imply that the testimony of the witness is to be brushed aside and cannot be relied upon. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 680, Hari SHARAD Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1988) 4 SCC 551), Leela Ram (Dead) GUPTA through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1999(4) R.C.R. Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA Date: 2025.09.27 State Vs. Geeta Devi 17:25:17 +0530 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 13 of 23 (Criminal) 588, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753, Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2020 and State of U.P. v. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998.
34. Furthermore, to my mind, the discrepancies, as pointed by Ld. Counsel for accused, are natural and bound to occur on account of passage of time and lapse of memory. Human memories are apt to blur with passage of time. A person cannot be expected to give a parrot like version or depose with mathematical precision at the drop of a hat as and when called to depose. Only a tutored witness can depose so. Errors due to lapse of time and resultant lapse of memory have to be given due allowance. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory or to recall the minutest details of an incident and to depose about the same with mathematical precision at the drop of a hat.
35. As regards the argument that while PW-2 stated that the police officials had seized the namkeen and later on volunteered that the namkeen alongwith the jar were seized by the police officials, as per record, the namkeen was never seized and only the broken pieces of the glass jar were seized during investigation of this case and PW-5 stated that the namkeen was not seized from the spot. In this context, the prosecution has been able to establish seizure of pieces of glass jar from the spot. Some discrepancies are to be expected in the testimony of witnesses, with passage of time. The discrepancy pointed out by SHARAD GUPTA the Ld. Counsel for the accused is at the most a minor Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Geeta Devi GUPTA FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 14 of 23 Date: 2025.09.27 17:25:24 +0530 discrepancy which does not affect the broad features of the prosecution version.
36. As regards the argument that while assertion of PW- 2 was that his wife saw the entire incident, PW-5 wife of PW-2 flip-flopped as to whether she had seen the incident or not, it is a matter of record that PW-5 initially stated that she had not seen the incident but thereafter in the course of the same testimony, she stated that the accused had struck her husband on his head with the glass jar, just as she was about to go to her room. Thus, the testimony of PW-5 is at the most ambiguous in this regard and in course of the same testimony, she had stated that she had seen the incident. Even otherwise, the prosecution version is established by the testimony of PW-2 who is an injured in the present case. To my mind, the statement of PW-5 that she did not see the incident and was told by her husband that Geeta Devi had struck him does not damage the veracity of the prosecution version, in totality of the circumstances.
37. As regards the argument that while the assertion of PW-2 was that the quarrel was caused as the accused claimed that he had given wrong articles to her children, assertion of PW-5 was that the dispute was on the issue of grocery items and money taken for the same, it is observed that both the said statements cannot be said to be contradictory. The statement of PW5 that the dispute was on issue of grocery items and money taken for the same would encompass the dispute regarding wrong articles SHARAD given to children as stated by PW2. There is thus no GUPTA contradiction as alleged.
Digitally signed by SHARADGUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi
Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 15 of 23
17:25:31 +0530
38. As regards the arguments that while as per PW-6 Ct. Satish, he alongwith PW-7 had reached at the spot at about 06.45/6.50 pm, as per PW-7 SI Anand Prakash, he alongwith PW-6 had reached at the spot at about 07.00 pm. That as per PW- 8, police officials had reached at the spot 15 minutes after the incident. That as per the rukka, the incident had happened on 26.10.2015 at about 06.30 pm. To my mind, the minor discrepancies regarding the time at which police officials had reached at the spot would not falsify the prosecution version and the same is at the most a minor discrepancy which does not affect the broad features of the prosecution version.
39. As regards the arguments that while as per PW-2, many persons gathered at the spot of incident and as per PW-5, three-four persons gathered at the spot of incident, while as per PW-2 entire gali residents were present at the time of the incident, it is observed that powers of observation of every person are different. Every person notices his surroundings differently. Thus, merely because PW-5 and PW-2 could not agree regarding the number of public persons who had gathered at the spot, would not falsify the prosecution version and the same is a minor discrepancy which does not affect the broad features of the prosecution version.
40. I have carefully perused the testimonies of PW-2 Mr. Janardhan Mishra (the injured himself), PW-5 Smt. Sumitra Devi and PW-8 Smt. Radha Arora. In my considered opinion, SHARAD the contradictions pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel, in the GUPTA testimonies of these witnesses are too trivial in nature to be given Digitally signed any weightage. The testimonies of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-8 by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 16 of 23 17:25:38 +0530 otherwise appear to be credible and trustworthy. Their statements do not suffer from any unnecessary embellishments, material improvements or vital discrepancies.
41. There is another aspect of the matter. The prosecution is relying interalia on the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Janardhan Gupta who was injured during the incident. It would be appropriate here to refer to the settled preposition of law as to the appreciation of evidence of injured - eye witness. It has been held in Veer Bahadur Singh vs. State and others, 2015:DHC 2594 that the evidence of an injured witness has to be given due weightage as he is a stamped witness and his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. It was further held that testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy. Furthermore, in Rajan Vs. State of Haryana, 2025, INSC 1081 , the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the law relating to appreciation of evidence of an injured eye witness in the following terms:-
33. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted 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 the 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 greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot SHARAD be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If GUPTA there be any exaggeration or immaterial Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 17 of 23 Date: 2025.09.27 17:25:44 +0530 embellishments 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."
34. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. (See: Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra :(2023) 13 SCC 365)
42. In the facts of the present case, the fact that PW-2 had suffered injuries in the course of commission of offence fortifies his presence at the spot. Also, the defence failed to bring SHARAD on record any reason sufficient enough for PW-2 to falsely GUPTA implicate the accused in the present matter. During course of Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 18 of 23 17:25:51 +0530 cross-examination, a suggestion was given to PW-2 that he had an evil eye on the accused and used to harass her for the same, however, no such suggestion was given to either PW-5 or to PW-
8. Pertinently, the said defence was not taken by the accused during course of recording of her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. where she only took a plea of bald denial. In the facts of the present case, the defence has not been able to bring on record any compelling reason for which PW-2 might have falsely implicated the accused. Thus, there is no strong reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently improbable or unreliable in his evidence. As already observed PW-2 has withstood the test of cross-examination and his testimony inspires the confidence of the court.
43. It has also been argued on behalf of the accused that PW-5 and PW-8 are respectively the wife and daughter of the injured but they did not accompany him to the hospital and also did not make any PCR call. It is stated that the said conduct of the wife and daughter of the injured is sufficient to suggest that they were not present at the spot and have been planted as witnesses to support the version of the complainant. In the facts of the present case, PCR had reached at the spot and had taken the injured to the hospital. As per record, the injured was running a small shop which would have required presence of some family members to take care of the shop. Furthermore, PW-8 is married and as per her version, she used to return to her house in the evening. In the totality of the circumstances discussed above, SHARAD merely because PW-5 and PW-8 did not take the injured to the GUPTA hospital would not falsify their version or their presence at the Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 19 of 23 17:25:58 +0530 spot. This argument of the accused is thus liable to be rejected. Similarly, as per PW-2, when he was injured, someone had already made PCR call. In these circumstances, merely because PW-5 and PW-8 did not make any PCR call would not falsify the prosecution version.
44. It is further argued that PW-8 is a planted witness as she was married and would have been in her matrimonial house. It is further argued that PW-2 did not state about presence of PW- 8 in the initial rukka.
45. As regards the argument that PW-8 is a married women, PW-8 specifically stated that she resided nearby to the house of her parents in Vijay Enclave and usually she came to her parents house when her husband went to his work and then, she used to return to her matrimonial home in the evening prior to arrival of her husband. The assertion of PW-8 in this regard is thus neither improbable nor unnatural. Thus, merely because PW-8 was married, would not imply that she could not have been present in the house of her parents on the day of the incident.
46. As regards the argument that PW-2 in his complaint Ex.PW2/A did not assert that PW-8 was present at their house, it is a matter of record that PW-2 did not disclose regarding presence of PW-8 in the shop in the initial complaint, however, during course of cross-examination of PW-2, his attention was not drawn to the said fact and he was not given an opportunity to explain regarding his omission to state regarding presence of SHARAD PW-8 at the spot. Furthermore, merely because PW-2 failed to GUPTA depose regarding presence of PW-8 at the spot in Ex.PW2/A, Digitally signed would not by itself falsify the presence of PW-8 at the spot. This by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi Date: 2025.09.27 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 20 of 23 17:26:04 +0530 argument is thus liable to be rejected.
47. It is argued that the incident happened in a thickly populated area and as per prosecution witnesses, public persons were present at the spot, however, no public witness was joined in the investigation of the case and no independent eye witness from the locality was either examined or cited as a witness in the present case which falsifies the veracity of the prosecution version. In this context, it is pertinent to observe that the prosecution is relying interalia on the testimony of PW-2 who is himself an injured and an eye witness of the incident. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence that matters and not the quantity. In the facts of the present case, the State had examined the wife and daughter of the injured as witnesses who have supported the prosecution version. As already observed, the testimonies of PW-2 Janardhan Gupta (injured), PW-5 Smt. Sumitra Devi (Wife the injured) and PW-8 Smt. Radha Gupta (daughter of the injured) have withstood the test of cross- examination and inspire the confidence of the court. Thus, in totality of the circumstances, non-joining of independent witnesses from the locality does not falsify the prosecution version.
48. Furthermore, the testimonies of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-8 have also been corroborated by medical evidence i.e. MLC SHARAD GUPTA no. 9480 Ex.A2 and the result/opinion regarding the nature of injury Ex.A3, which have been admitted by the accused U/s 294 Digitally signed by SHARAD Cr.P.C. As per Ex.A2 and Ex.A2, injured Janardhan Mishra had GUPTA Date: 2025.09.27 17:26:11 +0530 State Vs. Geeta Devi FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 21 of 23 received injury on his head i.e. frontal aspect and temporal aspect of skull, in the assault.
49. The weapon of offence i.e. pieces of glass jar with which the accused had allegedly hit the injured on his head has also been seized in the present matter.
50. Through the testimony of PW-2 Mr. Janardhan Mishra (the injured himself), PW-5 Smt. Sumitra Devi and PW-8 Smt. Radha Arora, the prosecution has also been able to establish that on the alleged date, time and place, accused Geeta Devi came to the shop of the complainant/victim Mr. Janardhan Mishra where a quarrel took place between accused Geeta Devi on one side and PW-5 Smt. Sumitra Devi and PW-2 Mr. Janardhan Mishra on the other side and during the said quarrel, accused Geeta Devi had hit PW-2 Janardhan Gupta on his head with a glass jar causing injuries on his head which is a vital part of the body.
51. In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Geeta Devi in respect of the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.
52. Accordingly, while the accused Geeta Devi is SHARAD GUPTA convicted for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC.
Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTADate: 2025.09.27 State Vs. Geeta Devi 17:26:22 +0530 FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 22 of 23
53. Copy be supplied to the accused free of cost.
54. Let the accused be heard separately on the point of sentence.
SHARAD Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA Announced in the open Court GUPTA Date: 2025.09.27 17:26:28 +0530 on 27th September, 2025.
(SHARAD GUPTA) Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi It is certified that this Judgment contains twenty three (23) pages and each page bears my initials / signatures.
SHARAD Digitally signed by
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.27
17:26:33 +0530
(SHARAD GUPTA)
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi State Vs. Geeta Devi FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 23 of 23