Delhi District Court
State vs Tarkeshwar Pandey on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 71837/2016
CNR No. -: DLWT020095962015
FIR No. -: 96/2015
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 323/509/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
(1) TARKESHWAR PANDEY
S/o Rameshwar Pandey
R/o H.No. 52/66, Gali No. 19,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
(2) RAJESHWAR PANDEY
S/o Rameshwar Pandey
R/o H.No. 52/66, Gali No. 19,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
(3) ANNU DEVI
S/o Rajeshwar Pandey
R/o H.No. 52/66, Gali No. 19,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
.... Accused Persons
1. Name of Complainant :- Meenu
2. Name of Accused :- (1) Tarkeshwar Pandey
Persons (2) Rajeshwar Pandey
(3) Annu Devi
3. Offence complained of :- 323/509/34 IPC
or proved
4. Plea of accused persons :- Not Guilty
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:55:11 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 1 of 42
5. Date of Commission of :- 07.05.2014
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 13.10.2015
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 02.02.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 02.04.2026
9. Final Order :- (1) Tarkeshwar Pandey:
Acquitted
(2) Rajeshwar Pandey:
Acquitted
(3) Annu Devi:
Acquitted
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State assisted
by Sh. Ajay Bharti, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. J.A. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the accused
persons.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that the complainant has filed an application under 156 (3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC") alleging that the complainant, a helpless girl, resides with her mother, brother, bhabhi, and niece at 52/66, First Floor, Gali No. 19, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi occupying the first floor of the house for over 30 years under distressful conditions, while the accused--namely her father (Tarkeshwar Pandey i.e., accused no. 1), uncle (Rajeshwar Pandey i.e., accused no. 2), and aunty (Annu Devi i.e., accused no. 3) -- Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:55:21 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 2 of 42 reside on the ground floor and live a comparatively lavish life. It is further alleged that the accused persons frequently restricted access to the terrace, leading to repeated arguments, abuses, and harassment of the complainant and her mother. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 allegedly never showed affection to the complainant, her mother, or siblings, accusing the mother of infidelity and opposing her stay in Delhi. She has further alleged that after the family shifted to Delhi, all accused allegedly subjected the complainant, her mother, and siblings to continuous abuse, harassment, and physical violence as part of a conspiracy to force them to vacate the house and return to their native place. It is further alleged that the accused persons allegedly used filthy and defamatory language, calling the complainant and her mother prostitutes and whenever the mother protested, accused Nos. 1 and
2 allegedly beat her mercilessly, even assaulting neighbours who intervened, and on one occasion forcibly evicted the complainant's brother after beating him.
1.1. It is further alleged that due to continued atrocities, the complainant and her mother filed cases under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter "DV Act") and Section 125 CrPC, which are pending. The complainant has further alleged that after learning of these cases, the accused persons allegedly intensified their harassment and accused No. 1 allegedly struck the complainant with a wooden stick while she was talking with friends near the house. It is further alleged that when police were called via 100 number, accused Nos. 1 and 2 fled and accused No. 3 shut the house; the PCR arrived but allegedly took no action. It is further alleged that during court proceedings, permission was granted to install a sub-meter for Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 16:55:27 Date: 2026.04.02 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 3 of 42 electricity for the complainant's portion, which allegedly led the accused to repeatedly disconnect electricity by switching off the main supply from the ground floor and when questioned, accused No. 3 allegedly abused the complainant and her mother, while accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly assaulted the complainant with slaps and sticks. It is further alleged that despite multiple calls to the police, no effective action was allegedly taken.
1.2. Complainant has further alleged that on 07.05.2014, after attending court proceedings, the complainant and her mother returned home to find the electricity disconnected by accused No. 3, who allegedly abused the complainant and threatened her to withdraw the case, claiming influence with higher authorities. It is further alleged that on evening of 07.05.2014 at around 06:00- 06:30 PM, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language; accused No. 2 slapped her, accused No. 3 called her prostitute, and accused No. 1 allegedly threw boiling water from a "pateela" at her, causing serious injury to her hand. It is further alleged that the complainant rushed to call her mother from upstairs and called police by calling 100 no. and the PCR took the complainant to Jeewanmala Hospital, Rohtak Road, where MLC No. 84/14 was prepared and her statement recorded vide DD No. 46B. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 was taken to the police station but allegedly released shortly thereafter without proper action and subsequently, the accused persons allegedly continued abusing and manhandling the complainant, prompting complaints to the local police and the DCP. The complainant alleges that the accused persons intentionally committed offences of hurt, assault, molestation, criminal intimidation, and threats, creating a constant ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:55:34 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 4 of 42 apprehension of further harm.
1.3. As such it is alleged that the accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey, Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi have committed the offences punishable under sections 323/509/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) and FIR was registered pursuant to order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the then Ld. ACMM (West), THC, Delhi. Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons after completion of investigation on 13.10.2015 for the offences punishable U/s 323/509/34 of IPC.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. Accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey, Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi entered appearance before this court and in terms of section 207 CrPC, the accused persons were supplied the copy of the chargesheet as well as documents relied upon in the same.
3. On a finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge was framed for the offences punishable U/s 323/34 of IPC against the accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey, Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi on 09.10.2017. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Meenu (Complainant) PW2 :- Umrawati Devi (Mother of complainant) PW3 :- W/ASI Kaushalya (Accompanied IO to the ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL spot) PANGHAL Date:Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 5 of 42
2026.04.02 16:55:53 +0530 PW4 :- ASI Mukesh (Duty Officer) PW5 :- ASI Ashok Kumar (Accompanied IO to the spot) PW6 :- Insp. Pradeep Kumar (Attended PCR call) PW7 :- Retd. SI Jai Parkash (IO) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Copy of complaint filed by complainant to DCP through speed post along with postal receipts Ex.PW1/B :- Application U/s 156 (3) CrPC filed by the complainant.
Ex. PW 1/C :- Statement of complainant before Ld. Magistrate Mark A :- Complaint dated 30.04.2014 filed by complainant to SHO concerned Ex. PW :- Order dated 07.05.2014 passed by Ms. 2/DA (Colly) Saumya Chauhan, Ld. MM along with reply of IO Ex. PW3/A :- Arrest memo of accused Annu Devi Ex. PW3/B :- Personal search memo of accused Annu Devi Ex. PW4/A :- Endorsement on rukka Ex. PW4/B :- FIR No. 96/15 PS Anand Parbat Ex. PW4/C :- Certificate U/s 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "IEA"/ "Evidence Act") Ex. PW5/A :- Arrest memo of accused Tarkeshwar Pandey Ex. PW5/B :- Arrest memo of accused Rajeshwar Pandey Ex. PW5/C :- Personal search memo of accused Tarkeshwar Pandey Ex. PW5/D :- Personal search memo of accused Rajeshwar Pandey Mark A :- Statement of complainant recorded by PW6 Mark B :- DD No. 46 B dt. 08.05.2014 Ex. PW7/A :- Endorsement made by IO on complaint given by complainant Ex. PW7/B :- Site Plan Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:55:59 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 6 of 42 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC) Ex. AD-1 :- Statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC Ex. AD-2 :- MLC No. 84/2014 dated 07.05.2014 of complainant
5. Ms. Meenu (PW-1) is the complainant in the present case. She took the stand to depose that on 05.07.2014, the electricity connection of her house no. 52/66, First Floor, Gali No. 19, Nayi Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi was cut by the accused persons and she requested accused persons to connect their electricity with electric meter but they refused to do so. PW1 further deposed that one case of domestic violence was pending against the accused persons which was filed by her mother and in that case, Ld. Magistrate has ordered that if the accused persons cut the electricity connection, click the photographs. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, as per the instructions of Ld. Magistrate, on the abovesaid date, she went downstairs to click photographs of the sub-meter which is installed on the ground floor of the abovesaid house and when she was clicking the photographs from her mobile phone, accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey and Rajeshwar Pandey came there and snatched her mobile phone and threw it on the wall, due to which her mobile phone broke. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, she asked accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey and Rajeshwar Pandey as to why they had broken her phone and thereafter, her father went inside. PW1 further deposed that on hearing her voice, accused Annu Devi came out from her room and hold her hairs from behind and thereafter accused Rajeshwar Pandey started slapping her. PW1 Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:56:05 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 7 of 42 further deposed that both accused persons Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi tried to press her neck and in the meantime, accused Tarkeshwar Pandey came along with a big bowl containing hot water and threw hot water upon her, due to which she sustained burn injuries on her right hand. PW1 further deposed that she started screaming and thereafter, her mother came downstairs and all the accused persons started beating her mother also. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, she called at number 100 from the mobile phone of her mother and police officials came at the spot and took her to Jeewanmala Hospital for medical examination. PW1 further deposed that she was treated at Jeewanmala Hospital and after getting treatment, she returned back to her house. PW1 further deposed that police officials recorded her statement but did not take any action. PW1 further deposed that she went to police station to give her complaint time and again but police officials refused to take her complaint and also did not take any action against accused persons. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, she filed a complaint before DCP concerned via speed post but no action was taken on the said complaint also.
5.1. PW1 further deposed that copy of the complaint to DCP which was filed by her through speed post is Ex. PW1/A along with postal receipts. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, no action was taken by the police official and finding no other option, she filed an application before the Court for registration of FIR through her counsel. PW1 further deposed that while the application was pending before the Court, police official registered the FIR on the basis of her application u/s 156(3) Ex. PW1/B. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, the present FIR was registered on the direction of the Court and she had shown the place of incident ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:56:13 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 8 of 42 to the police official, who prepared the site plan. PW1 further deposed that later on, during investigation IO asked her to come at Tis Hazari Court for giving statement before Ld. Magistrate and on 23.02.2015, she went to Tis Hazari Court for giving my statement before Ld. Magistrate, who recorded her statement Ex. PW1/C. PW1 further deposed that initially, she had filed a complaint to the concerned SHO dated 30.04.2014 Mark A. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
5.2. In cross-examination, Ms. Meenu (PW 1) has admitted the fact that her mother had filed a case of domestic violence against the accused persons. She further admitted the fact that the said case is sub judice. PW1 further admitted the fact that her mother had filed an application before the Court with regard to tempering of electricity meter by accused persons. PW1 further deposed that she does not remember as to whether the Court has directed one police official to visit and verify whether electricity meter was functional or not. PW1 further deposed that she does not know whether any police official filed any reply before the Court or not. She further deposed that she does not know whether the application filed by her mother was dismissed by the Court or not.
PW1 further admitted the fact that the place of incident is a residential area. PW1 further deposed that no public person has gathered outside her house at the time of the incident. PW1 further deposed that she had not given the broken phone to the police officials and when she got the phone repaired, the photographs were not in the phone. PW1 further deposed that she did not handover the photographs of the electricity meter to the police officials as her phone was broken by the accused persons Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:56:19 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 9 of 42 Tarkeshwar and Rajeshwar. PW1 denied the suggestion neither the accused persons had broken her phone nor they have given any beatings to her. PW1 further deposed that the incident happened in the year 2014 and she does not remember whether she had given any complaint to the DCP or not. PW1 further deposed that her statement was recorded before the Ld. Judge also and she does not remember whether she had stated the fact that when she was clicking the photographs from her mobile phone, accused persons namely Tarkeshwar and Rajeshwar came there and snatched her mobile phone and threw it on the wall and due to which her mobile phone broke, in her statement before the Ld. Judge. PW1 further deposed that she is illiterate and does not know how to read and write.
5.3. PW1 further admitted the fact that she does not know what statement of her was recorded by the police officials and by the Ld. Judge. She further deposed that she does not remember know whether the person who had written her compliant to DCP Ex. PW 1/A, read over the same to her or not.
PW1 further deposed that she does not know what was written in her complaint Ex. PW 1/B, before the Judge. PW1 denied the suggestion that she does not know what are the contents of her complaint and she just simply signed the same at the instance of her mother. PW1 further admitted the fact that the litigation is pending between her mother and the present accused persons including the case for maintenance. PW1 further deposed that the incident had taken place on the day when she along with her mother attending the Court proceedings and thereafter, went to their house. PW1 further deposed that the police officials reached at the spot after some time of her making call. PW1 further ANKUR PANGHAL Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:56:27 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 10 of 42 deposed that she had stated in her statement U/s 164 CrPC the fact that both the accused persons namely Rajeshwar and Annu Devi tried to press her neck. PW1 was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 1/C, where it was found to be not so recorded. PW1 further denied the suggestion that no such incident has ever taken place or that she has falsely implicated the accused persons at the behest of her mother. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the present case has been filed because her mother's application was dismissed by the Court with regard to tempering of meter. PW1 further denied the suggestion that she had not shown the place of incident to the police officials. She further denied the suggestion that police officials had not prepared the site plan at her instance. PW1 admitted the fact that document Ex. PW 7/B (site plan) does not bear her signature. PW1 further denied the suggestion that Ex. PW7/B does not bear my signature as the same was not prepared in her presence or at her instance. PW1 further denied the suggestion that neither the accused had given any beating to her or her mother nor they had thrown the boiling water upon her. The witness further denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
6. Umrawati Devi (PW 2) is the mother of complainant, who took the stand to depose that she does not remember the date, month and year. PW2 further deposed that one case was pending between accused persons and her. PW2 further deposed that accused persons used to cut the electricity connection of her house and in the case which was pending between accused persons and her, they had visited the court and apprised all the facts. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, Ld. Magistrate asked them to click the photographs of the meter, if the accused persons cut their electricity connection. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, as per ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:56:35 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 11 of 42 the instructions of Ld. Magistrate, one day accused persons cut their electricity connection and her daughter went downstairs to click the photographs of the meter which was installed on the ground floor of their house. PW2 further deposed that she was preparing food in her house and she heard shouting noise of her daughter and when she went downstairs to see what had happened to her daughter. PW2 further deposed that her daughter was crying and there was burn injuries on her right hand. PW2 further deposed that her daughter told her that accused persons gave beatings to her and also abused her and accused Tarkeshwar Pandey brought a big bowl containing hot water and threw hot water upon her daughter, due to which she sustained burn injuries on her right hand. PW2 further deposed that accused persons Annu Devi, Rajeshwar Pandey and Tarkeshwar Pandey also gave beatings to her. PW2 further deposed that a call was made at number 100, police officials reached at the spot and took her daughter to Jeevan Mala Hospital. PW2 further deposed that she also accompanied her daughter to Jeevan Mala Hospital and after getting treatment, they both returned back to their house. PW2 further deposed that she and her daughter had also filed a complaint against the accused persons. PW2 further deposed that police officials directed them to file a case in Tis Hazari Court. PW2 further deposed that police officials did not take any action. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, they filed a case in Tis Hazari Court. PW2 further deposed that she is illiterate and she cannot read and write. PW2 further deposed that she can only sign. The witness has correctly identified accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi, who were present in court and the identity of accused Rajeshwar Pandey was not disputed by the defence counsel. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:56:41 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 12 of 42 6.1. In cross-examination, Umrawati Devi (PW 2) has admitted the fact that the place of incident is a residential area. She has further deposed that nobody has come at the place where the incident happened. PW2 further deposed that police officials had reached the spot when she made call at number 100 and nobody had told police about the incident. PW2 further admitted the fact that a domestic violence case was pending between her and the accused persons. PW2 further deposed that she had filed an application before the Court with regard to tampering of electricity meter by accused persons. She further admitted the fact that Ld. Magistrate had directed one police official to visit and verify whether electricity meter was functional or not and thereafter police official visited their house and found that electricity meter was not working. PW2 further deposed that she does not remember whether said police officials had filed any reply / report before the concerned Ld. Magistrate. PW2 denied the suggestion that police official had filed reply/report with regard to his visit to the place where the electricity meters were installed. She further denied the suggestion that concerned Ld. Magistrate had dismissed the application with regard to tampering of electricity meter after seeing the reply/report of police official. The witness was shown order dated 07.05.2014 passed by Ld. MM Ms. Saumya Chauhan and on seeing the order witness submitted that she cannot read the order as she is illiterate. Thereafter, the said order was read over to the witness and upon hearing the contents of the above order, witness submitted that she does not remember whether the said above order was passed or not. The order dated 07.05.2014 along with the reply of the IO is Ex.PW2/DA (Colly). PW2 further deposed that the property bearing No. 52/66 belongs to her father-
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:56:48 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 13 of 42
in-law. PW2 denied the suggestion that the abovesaid property belongs to her brother-in-law and his wife Annu Devi and they are the registered owner of said property. She further deposed that she does not remember whether the day of incident i.e., the day on which the accused persons gave beatings to her daughter and threw boiling water on her daughter and the day on which the application with regard to tampering of meter was dismissed was the same day or not. PW2 further admitted that fact that the facts regarding the beating and throwing of boiling water was told to her by my daughter. She further denied the suggestion that they had filed a false case against the accused persons as their application before with regard to tampering of meter was dismissed. PW2 further denied the suggestion that they had filed false case against accused persons in order to trap them in multiple litigations. She further denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely. PW2 also denied the suggestion that they had fabricated a false and concocted story in order to implicate accused persons in this false case.
7. W/ASI Kaushalya (PW 3) was examined in chief on 12.05.2022 wherein he sated on oath that on 04.04.2015, she was posted at PS Anand Parbat as HC and she along with Ct. Ashok and SI Jai Prakash went to Nai Basti i.e., H.No. 52/66, Gali No. 19, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi where they met accused Annu Devi. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, IO arrested accused Annu Devi vide arrest memo Ex.PW-3/A and she was also personally searched by her vide personal search memo PW-3/B. PW3 further deposed that accused Annu Devi was released on bail as the offence was bailable and in this regard IO recorded her Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:56:54 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 14 of 42 statement. The witness has correctly identified accused Annu Devi present in Court.
7.1. In cross-examination, W/ASI Kaushalya (PW 3) has deposed that IO had not enquired from any neighbour with regard to this case in her presence. PW3 admitted the fact no public person had signed the arrest memo of accused Annu Devi as a witness. She also admitted the fact that document Ex.PW-3/A does not bear signature of Ct. Ashok. PW3 further deposed that on that day she was on duty from 02:00 PM to 08:00 PM and she had made departure entry before leaving the PS. She further deposed that she does not know whether IO had place said DD entry on the file or not. PW3 denied the suggestion that she was not the part investigation at any point of time. PW3 also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
8. ASI Mukesh (PW 4) took the stand to depose that on 04.02.2015, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as HC and on that day, SI Jai Prakash handed over rukka to him for registration of FIR. PW4 further deposed that accordingly, he made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW4/A and thereafter, the rukka was given to the typewriter for registration of FIR Ex. PW4/B along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/C. 8.1. ASI Mukesh (PW 4) was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has denied the suggestion that the FIR was anti-dated and anti-timed.
9. ASI Ashok Kumar (PW 5) took the stand to depose that on 04.04.2015, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as constable and on that day, he was present on the PS. PW5 further deposed that at the request of IO, he joined the investigation in the present ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:57:02 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 15 of 42 case and he along with W/HC Kaushalya and SI Jai Parkash went to the house of the accused person which was situated at 52/66 Gali no. 19, New Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi. PW5 further deposed that accused persons were found present in the house and thereafter, accused persons were arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PWS/A to Ex. PW5/D and Ex. PW3/A & Ex. PW3/B. PW5 further deposed that in this regard IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified all accused persons in the Court.
9.1. ASI Ashok Kumar (PW 5) was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has deposed that he does not remember whether public persons had gathered outside the house of accused persons when we visited the house.
PW5 further deposed that the place from where the accused persons were arrested is thickly public areas. PW5 further deposed that he does not remember whether IO had asked any public person to join the investigation. PW5 further deposed that he also does not remember at what time the surety reached at the house of the accused, however, the bail bonds were executed in his presence. PW5 further deposed that he is not aware whether any other litigation is pending between the accused persons and the complainant. PW5 further deposed that the information about the arrest of the accused persons were given to mother of complainant. PW5 denied the suggestion that he was not part of investigation in the present case. PW5 further denied the suggestion that IO obtained his signatures on the arrest memo in the police station later on. PW5 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:57:08 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 16 of 42
10. Insp. Pardeep Kumar (PW 6) took the stand to depose that on the intervening night of 07/08 May 2014, he was posted as SI at PS Anand Parbat and on that day, he was on night emergency duty. PW6 further deposed that DD No. 28 A regarding quarrel was marked to him for investigation. PW6 further deposed that thereafter he went to the spot i.e., 52/66, Gali No. 19, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi, where he came to know that the injured has been taken to hospital by PCR. PW6 further deposed that thereafter he went to Jeewan Mala Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Ms. Meenu Pandey. PW6 further deposed that as per MLC, the nature of injury was opined as simple. PW6 further deposed that he came to know that the injured has left the hospital. PW6 further deposed that thereafter he went to the house of the injured and recorded her statement Mark A. PW6 further deposed that thereafter he lodged DD No. 46 B dt. 08.05.2014 Mark B based on the statement of the injured and the MLC.
10.1. Insp. Pardeep Kumar (PW 6) was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has admitted the fact that the spot is a residential area. PW6 further deposed that he had not searched for the eye witness at the spot. PW6 further deposed that he only recorded the statement of complainant only and none else. PW6 further deposed that he had not joined any independent public person at the time of recording of statement of complainant Meenu Pandey. He denied the suggestion that he neither visited the spot nor recorded the statement of complainant. PW6 further denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done at the police station. PW6 also denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair investigation in the present case. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:57:14 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 17 of 42
11. Retd. SI Jai Parkash (PW 7) took the stand to depose that on 04.02.2015 he was posted as SI at PS Anand Parbat and on that day, the complaint Ex. PW-1/B was marked to him and thereafter he had made endorsement Ex. PW 7/A on the complaint and got the FIR registered. PW7 further deposed that during investigation, on 23.02.2015, he got recorded the statement U/s 164 CrPC of complainant Meenu Pandey before Ld. MM. PW7 further deposed that he also prepared site plan Ex. PW7/B on the same day at the instance of complainant. PW7 further deposed that he recorded supplementary statement of the injured/complainant as well as statement of mother of complainant. PW7 further deposed that on 04.04.2015, he along with Ashok & HC Kaushalya went to the house of accused persons and they found all the accused persons present in the house. PW7 further deposed that thereafter all the accused persons were arrested and personally searched vide memo already Ex. PW-5/A to Ex: PW-5/D and Ex. PW-3/A & Ex. PW-3/B. PW7 further deposed that all accused persons were released on police bail as the offence is bailable. PW7 further deposed that thereafter he completed his investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the Court. PW7 has correctly identified accused Tarkeshwar Pandey in Court and the identity of accused persons namely Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi was not disputed by the defence.
11.1. Retd. SI Jai Parkash (PW 7) was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has admitted the fact that the spot is situated in a residential area. PW7 further admitted the fact that several other persons were residing in the concerned building and several people reside in the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:57:28 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 18 of 42 neighbourhood. He further deposed that he did not record the statement of all the people residing in the building and neighbour. The witness, upon being questioned regarding that fact as to whether he recorded the statement of the owner of the concerned house, answered that the father, uncle & aunty of the complainant are the owner of the house. PW7 further deposed that he has never seen the documents relating to the ownership of the house. He further deposed that accused No 1 is the father of the complainant and accused No 2 & 3 are real uncle & aunty of the complainant. PW7 further deposed that he does not know whether any matrimonial or other cases are pending between the parties or not. PW7 admitted the fact that he has not cited any independent witness in the charge-sheet. PW7 further deposed that during the investigation he did not come across any independent witness. He voluntarily deposed that the FIR was registered after 6-7 months. PW7 denied the suggestion that he is intentionally and deliberately not admitting to the matrimonial cases and other cases pending between the parties, though he is aware about this same. PW7 further deposed that he is not aware about the fact that on the date of incident the parties had a court date in the DV Act, where an application of the complainant was dismissed by the concerned court. PW7 further denied the suggestion that he did not prepare the site plan at the instance of complainant. PW7 further denied the suggestion that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. PW7 further denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the case in fair and proper manner. PW7 further denied the suggestion that entire investigation was conducted while sitting in the PS. PW7 further denied the suggestion that he Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:57:34 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 19 of 42 did not visit the spot. PW7 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of complainant.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
12. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statements of accused persons were recorded without oath on 06.12.2025 under section 313 Cr. PC. They have stated that the IO has not conducted the investigation in a proper and fair manner. They further stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant and her mother, with whom matrimonial cases are pending. They further stated that they do want to lead defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state, who was assisted by Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. counsel for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration of the material appearing on record.
14. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has argued that PW1/complainant is daughter of accused no. 1 and niece of accused no. 2 and 3. It is further argued that matrimonial dispute of father and mother of complainant is going on. She has further argued that the complainant and accused persons are staying in same premises but on different floors and the present incident arose because of electricity connection and installation of sub meter on the floor on which complainant is residing. It is Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:57:41 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 20 of 42 further argued that the accused persons used to harass complainant, by cutting the electricity of floor of complainant and the same thing happened on date of incident. She has further argued that the complainant has, in her statement dated 07.05.2014, which was recorded at the time of filing of ATR, has mentioned all the facts in detail, which fulfils all the ingredients of present offence. It is further argued that the complainant has stated all the facts in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC as well in her testimony before the court. It is further argued that mens rea of accused persons was to cause grievous hurt to the complainant and they had motive to cause the same because of previous enmity. It is further argued that the accused persons have admitted the genuineness of MLC of complainant and the same reflects that complainant suffered simple injuries. It is further argued that presence of accused persons is not disputed at the time of incident. Further, the other evidence on record has corroborated the version of the eyewitness and the offences are proved beyond any doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
15. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused persons has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the complainant has stated that site plan was prepared at her instance but the same does not bear her or her mother's signatures. It is further argued that the arrest memos or personal search memos of accused persons also does not bear signatures of the complainant. It is further argued that no independent witness has been cited by the prosecution despite the place of incident being a residential area. It is further argued that only two public witnesses have been cited by the prosecution i.e., ANKUR PANGHAL Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:57:49 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 21 of 42 the complainant and her mother, who are interested witnesses. It is further argued that the public witnesses are not reliable and there are contradictions at every stage of investigation/inquiry/trial. It is further argued that the injury caused to complainant is self- inflicted. It is further argued that PW2 is not an eye witness and she was told about the incident by the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant has deposed that he she went downstairs to take photographs but no phone was seized during the investigation. It is further argued that IO has not made any efforts to join public witnesses during investigation. It is further argued that there is matrimonial dispute between accused no 1 and mother of complainant and the present case has been filed to create pressure upon accused persons. Ld. Counsel has submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witnesses. It is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden casted upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be acquitted for the said offences.
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
16. The accused persons have been charged for the offences of voluntarily causing hurt (S. 323 IPC). In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused persons voluntarily caused simple hurt, as per Section 319 IPC, to the victim. The twin conditions of prearranged plan and active participation are to be proved in order to fasten vicarious liability on the accused persons by virtue of Section 34 of the IPC.
17. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 319, 323 & 34 of IPC, which are as follows:
Digitally signed by ANKURANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:57:56 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 22 of 42 "319. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both
34. Acts 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."
18. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 323 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. Hurt: The accused should have caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person;
ii. Voluntary act: The hurt should have been caused voluntarily by the accused i.e., with the intention or knowledge that the accused by his/her act will cause hurt to any person; and iii. Hurt not caused on provocation: The hurt must not be caused by the accused on grave and sudden provocation, so as to fall within the ambit of section 334 IPC.
19. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:06 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 23 of 42 similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfil the requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre- arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
20. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of the innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that point towards the guilt of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
21. I have carefully gone through all the records at hand and testimony of the witnesses. After perusal, this court is of the opinion that the point for determination in the present case is:
I. Whether on 07.05.2014 at about 06:30 PM at House No. 52/66, First Floor, Gali No. 19, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant namely Meenu by throwing boiling water upon her and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 323/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:58:12 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 24 of 42 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
22. Events leading to incident - The case of the prosecution is that the event which led to the incident on 07.05.2014 is that after attending court proceedings, the complainant and her mother returned home to find the electricity disconnected by accused No. 3, who allegedly abused the complainant and threatened her to withdraw the case, claiming influence with higher authorities. It is further alleged that on evening of 07.05.2014 at around 06:00-06:30 PM, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language; accused No. 2 slapped her, accused No. 3 called her prostitute, and accused No. 1 allegedly threw boiling water from a " pateela" at her, causing serious injury to her hand.
23. Evidence of injured witness - The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the complainant namely Meenu as PW-1 and her mother Umrawati Devi as PW-2, who are the star witnesses of the prosecution. This it becomes important here to discuss the lens with which the testimony of injured witness is to be evaluated. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2023) SCC Online SC 355 where it was observed as follows:
"26. 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. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:18 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 25 of 42
(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 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.
27. 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, 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."
23.1. Furthermore, In Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 712, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"10. It is a general handicap attached to all eyewitnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all the events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind the testimony Digitally signed cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone."
by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:25 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 26 of 42 Given the fact that each witness has a different perception of facts, natural variations in their versions are bound to appear. As such, it is in this light that the evidence of injured witnesses is to be examined.
23.2. Furthermore, in Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh [2024] 1 S.C.R. 40: 2024 INSC 6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while discussing the importance of testimony of injured witness has held that the importance of injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be over stated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial.
24. Contradictions and Inconsistencies - It has been argued by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons that there are material contradictions in the testimony of complainant as well as mother of complainant. Thus, it becomes pertinent to discuss the law regarding appreciation of evidence of a witness in case there are contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of the said witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has pointed out in a catena of judgments that minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the matter, are of no consequence. In Brahm Swaroop vs. State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288, it was observed, inter alia, as under -
"32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions."
Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:31 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 27 of 42 the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (See: State of UP vs. MK Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (2007) 12 SCC 381, State vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 and Prithu vs. State of HP (2009) 11 SCC 588)"
24.1. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the reliability of testimony of an injured witness in light of contradictions and discrepancies in State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, has observed as under -
"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 v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] , Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] )"
24.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Birbal Nath v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors [2023] 14 S.C.R. 85: 2023 INSC 957, has observed as under -
"... In Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, this Court had held as under:
"24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:38 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 28 of 42 courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."
24.3. The three judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 09th January, 2025 in a case titled as Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011) [2025] 1 S.C.R. 657: 2025 INSC 47 has held that:
53. To the same effect it was also observed in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) Supp SCC 241 as follows:
"13. ... The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] observed : [SCC p. 756, para 8 : SCC (Cri) p. 824, para 8]..."
24.4. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi very recently on 31st October, 2025 in the case titled State vs. Ram Swaroop & Ors. in CRL.A. 969/2002 held that:
14. Reference in this context can also be made to another judgment in State of U.P. V. Naresh and Ors. 2011 AD (SC) 20 Digitally signed by wherein it was observed in the following words: ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:45 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 29 of 42 "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 implicit a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there were grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
15. The discrepancies/contradictions/improvements which are not material cannot discredit the testimony of an injured witness as was observed in the case titled as Vinod Tyagi & Ors. Vs. State 2013 IV AD (Delhi) 145.
16. Human memory has its own peculiar limitations of retaining, recapitulating, narrating and reiterating etc. It varies from person to person, event to event and from time to time etc. A person may very meticulously and vividly remember certain events, occurrences, persons or acts depending upon his own capacity, the importance attached to the persons, events, time, places, etc. Those very aspects may be too trivial for another person and therefore, little or no memory would be there. It is common that narration of events, etc. varies not only from person to person but the same person may not be able to recall and reiterate a particular thing/event, person/incident with the same precision and chronological order as was the first or the previous narrative was. This does not mean that the person was not privy to the event narrated, as long as the essential aspect remains intact and alive. A slip here or there or mix up about certain aspects would not rob the strength of the narration as long as the inference and impact of the narrative remains unadulterated and unaltered.
17. The discrepancies/inconsistencies etc. are required to evaluated in the real world in real life situations, where minor and trivial ones are to be ignored. A mix up in the face and name, some minor mix up in chronological narrative, time gap, exact timings which document prepared, where and signed by whom first, so on and so forth are not potent enough to uproot the testimony of a witness, if the soul of the narrative remains intact. In this context reference can be made to the judgment State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr reported in 1981 SCC (2) 752, it was held as under:
Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:58:51 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 30 of 42
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person."
In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl.A. 25-26/2000), the Apex Court held as under:
"Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW.2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence."
25. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the facts of the present case may be considered. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused persons are that the complainant has herself admitted that there are disputes pending between her mother and accused persons. It is further argued that there are contradictions in Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:57 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 31 of 42 testimony of complainant at every stage of inquiry/investigation/trial.
26. Perusal of the application filed U/s 156(3) CrPC Ex. PW1/B reveals that complainant has mentioned that she rushed to call her mother upstairs when accused no.1 threw boiling water upon her.1 However, during the trial PW1/complainant has deposed that on hearing her screams, her mother came downstairs.2 Furthermore, perusal of the application filed U/s 156 (3) CrPC and the statement of complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC reveals that the complainant has not mentioned anything regarding accused persons beating her mother. The complainant for the first time disclosed the fact of accused persons beating her mother, during the trial, when her testimony was recorded wherein, she has stated that her mother was also beaten by accused persons. 3 However, PW2 has corroborated the version of PW1 and has deposed that she was also given beatings by all three accused persons. PW1 has deposed that she is illiterate and has deposed that she does not know, whether the person who had written her complaint to DCP Ex. PW1/A has read over the complaint to her or not and she also deposed that she does not know what was written in her complaint Ex. PW1/B.4 Thus, the base on which whole FIR and present case is based becomes doubtful. The complainant has denied the suggestion that site plan Ex. PW7/B was not prepared at her instance. Thus, if the site plan was prepared at the instance of 1 It is mentioned in para no. 8 of the application filed U/s 156 (3) CrPC Ex. PW1/B as, "...In the meantime the accused no 1 go back in the house and bring a "pateela" of boiling water and throw it on the complainant but the complainant moved from spot and the boiled water dropped on her hand due to which she was injured badly..."
2PW1 deposed that she started screaming and thereafter, her mother came downstairs and all the accused persons started beating her mother also.
3Supra note 2.
4PW1 deposed that she does not remember know whether the person who had written her compliant to DCP Ex. PW 1/A, read over the same to her or not. PW1 further deposed that she does not know what was written in her complaint Ex. PW 1/B, before the Judge.
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:59:04 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 32 of 42 complainant, the same should have signatures of complainant. However, perusal of site plan Ex. PW7/B reveals that signature of complainant is not present on it.
26.1. PW1 has also deposed that accused persons namely Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi tried to press her neck. 5 However, this fact was also disclosed for the first time during trial and the same was not mentioned in her application filed U/s 156(3) CrPC Ex. PW1/B and the statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC. The complainant has not mentioned regarding clicking of photographs by her and breaking of her by the accused persons in her application U/s 156(3) CrPC, however she has mentioned the same in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC. Ld. Counsel for complainant has assisted Ld. APP for state and has submitted the complainant has mentioned the above stated fact in her statement dated 07.05.2014, which was filed along with ATR and has submitted that the same can be read in evidence, as it forms part of application filed U/s 156(3) CrPC. However, perusal of record reveals that the statement dated 07.05.2014 of the complainant was never exhibited during the evidence, despite the complainant being subjected to a lengthy examination in chief. Furthermore, the alleged mobile phone was never seized by the IO during investigation and the complainant has not produced any photograph of date of incident. From the discussions made above, it is evident that there are improvements upon material facts at every stage of case. There have been additions done by the complainant in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC, with respect 5 PW1 deposed that both accused persons Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi tried to press her neck and in the meantime, accused Tarkeshwar Pandey came along with a big bowl containing hot water and threw hot water upon her, due to which she sustained burn injuries on her right hand. ANKUR PANGHAL Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:59:11 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 33 of 42 to the facts not mentioned in application U/s 156(3) CrPC and thereafter, in her testimony, which was recorded at the time of trial.
26.2. Furthermore, the date of incident is also not clear because in her application U/s 156(3) CrPC, the complainant has mentioned the date of incident as 07.05.2014. Thereafter, in her statement recoded U/s 164 CrPC, the complainant failed to tell the date of incident and in her testimony, recorded during trial, PW1/complainant has mentioned the date of incident as 05.07.2014. Furthermore, PW2 has also failed to deposed anything about the date of incident. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1/complainant and PW2/mother of complainant regarding date of incident, which is a major contradiction and discrepancy, which goes into the root of the matter, so as to demolish the entire prosecution story.
26.3. Furthermore, no public person has been made witness by the IO, except the complainant and her mother, whose testimonies have discrepancies, which goes to the root of case of prosecution. PW7 is the IO of present case and he has deposed that the spot is situated in a residential area and he has admitted that several other persons were residing in the concerned building and several people reside in neighbourhood but he did not record the statement of all the persons residing in building and neighbour. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by PW7 to join public witnesses in the proceedings. It is a well settled proposition that non joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.PC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:59:19 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 34 of 42 doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi vs. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".Digitally signed by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:59:25 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 35 of 42
27. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses, as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinabove and hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
28. Medical Evidence - The version of the injured persons is however supported by medical evidence on record. The accused persons have admitted the MLC No. 84/14 dt. 07.05.2014 Ex. AD-2 of the complainant under section 294 CrPC. From perusal of MLC, it is revealed that the doctor has opined the nature of injury as simple. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Ashok Daga v. Directorate of Enforcement in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8535/2024 (Diary No. 22849/2024) vide order dated 12th July, 2024 has held that calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution along with the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
28.1. In the case titled as Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726: 2024 INSC 800 while interpreting section 294 CrPC has held as under -
"15. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision, in particular, sub- section (3) provides that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence ANKURin any Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:59:32 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 36 of 42 inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That is to say that if the authors of such documents does not enter the witness box to prove their signatures, the said documents could still be read in evidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has the jurisdiction in its discretion to require such signature to be proved. In the present case, the documents filed by the investigating agency were all public documents duly signed by public servants in their respective capacities either as Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the autopsy or other police officials preparing the memo of recoveries etc. As such the Trial Court had rightly relied upon the same and exhibited them in view of the specific repeated stand taken by the defence in admitting the genuineness of the said documents. In so far as the police papers which had been signed by private persons like the informant, the same had been duly proved.
16. Thus the only job left for the Court was to appreciate, analyse and test the credit-worthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which was available on record and if such evidence beyond reasonable doubt established the charges, the conviction could be recorded. However, if the evidence was not credit- worthy and worthy of reliance, the accused could be given benefit of doubt or clean acquittal.
17. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, found that the evidence of PW 1 and 2, eye-witnesses to the account, to have fully supported the prosecution story and during the cross- examination, the defence could not elicit anything which could discredit their testimony.
18. Coming back to the applicability of section 294 CrPC, reference may be had to the following judgments of this Court in the case of Sonu alias Amar vs. State of Haryana6 wherein this Court had held in para 30 as follows:
"30. Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 provides a procedure for filing documents in a Court by the prosecution or the accused. The documents have to be included in a list and the other side shall be given an opportunity to admit or deny the genuineness of each document. In case the genuineness is not disputed, such document shall be read in evidence without formal proof in accordance with the Evidence Act."
19. Further, in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana,7 this Court held in para 14 as under:
"14..... It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a document under sub-section (1) to Section 294 CrPC personally from the accused or complainant or 6 [2017] 8 SCR 151: (2017) 8 SCC 570. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL 7 PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 [2015] 12 SCR 234: (2016) 15 SCC 485. 16:59:39 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 37 of 42 the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made by the counsel for defence, on the document filed by the prosecution or on the application/ report with which same is filed, is sufficient compliance of Section 294 CrPC. Similarly on a document filed by the defence, endorsement of admission or denial by the public prosecutor is sufficient and defence will have to prove the document if not admitted by the prosecution. In case it is admitted, it need not be formally proved, and can be read in evidence. In a complaint case such an endorsement can be made by the counsel for the complainant in respect of document filed by the defence."
20. Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs. State of Uttaranchal8 has held in para 21 as under:
"21. It has been argued that non-examination of the concerned medical officers is fatal for the prosecution. However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence admitted the genuineness of the injury reports and the post- mortem examination reports before the trial court. So the genuineness and authenticity of the documents stands proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under Section 294 of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned being examined."
28.2. In light of the law down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in above mentioned judgments, it can be said that genuineness of MLC of complainant was not disputed and therefore, the MLC may be read in evidence in the trial without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That is to say that if the authors of said MLC do not enter the witness box to prove their signatures, the said MLC could still be read in evidence. Perusal of MLC reveals that mild redness and swelling over forearm of left hand has been mentioned on it.
Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHALANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.02 8 [2009] 5 SCC 771: (2009) 13 SCC 722. 16:59:44 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 38 of 42 Further, the nature of injury mentioned is simple. The complainant has alleged that the injury was caused due to throwing of boiling water upon her by accused no. 1. However, the complainant has mentioned in her application U/s 156(3) CrPC that she has suffered injuries upon her hand, whereas in her statement U/s 164 CrPC she has mentioned that she suffered injuries upon her face and hands. Thereafter, during trial, the complainant has not mentioned about her injuries on face. Nothing has been mentioned in MLC of complainant regarding the injuries received by her on face. Furthermore, PW1 and PW2 have deposed that PW2 was also beaten by accused persons, but no MLC of PW2 has been placed on record. Neither any explanation has been placed on record as to why MLC of PW2 was not conducted.
29. Official witnesses - The police officials examined by the prosecution include the first responders and the officials who investigated the case. These witnesses have deposed about the events that unfolded pursuant to the incident. PW3/W/ASI Kaushalya and PW5/ASI Ashok Kumar are the police officials who accompanied the IO/PW7 to the spot i.e., house of accused persons and are witness to arrest, personal search and bail of accused persons. PW4/ASI Mukesh was duty officer and he has deposed about registration of present FIR.
29.1. PW6/Insp. Pardeep Kumar responded to PCR call made on intervening night of 07/08 May 2014. He has deposed about going to spot and thereafter to Jeewan Mala Hospital as well as collecting MLC of complainant. He has also deposed regarding recording statement of complainant. PW7/Retd. SI Jai Parkash is the IO in present case and he has deposed about getting the statement of complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC, preparation of ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:59:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 39 of 42 site plan, recording supplementary statement of complainant and her mother.
29.2. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that PW7 has not made any efforts to join any public person in investigation, despite the place of incident being a public place and thickly populated area. Furthermore, the police witnesses are only relevant to prove the investigation conducted after the incident. The version of these witnesses generally corroborates the claims of the public witness.
30. Defence of accused - The accused persons in their statements recorded U/s 281 r/w 313 CrPC have stated that IO has not conducted the investigation in a proper and fair manner. They further stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant and her mother, with whom matrimonial cases are pending. This fact has also been admitted by the complainant that there are matrimonial disputes pending between the mother of complainant and accused no. 1.
31. As such, on the basis of the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not inspires confidence. Regarding Section 34 IPC, it is observed that the provision makes a person jointly acting in concert with others, and in furtherance of their common intent, liable for any act done by any person involved in the offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of MP (2010) 10 SCC 259 has highlighted the ingredients of the provision, inter alia, as under -
"49. Section 34 IPC carves out an exception from general law that a person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a person can also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others if he has the "common intention" to commit the offence. The phrase "common intention" implies a prearranged plan and acting in ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:59:59 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 40 of 42 concert pursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time. The common intention to bring about a particular result may also well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances existing thereto. The common intention under Section 34 IPC is to be understood in a different sense from the "same intention" or "similar intention" or "common object". The persons having similar intention which is not the result of the prearranged plan cannot be held guilty of the criminal act with the aid of Section 34 IPC. (See Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 174:
(1963) 1 Cri LJ 100]) ..
52. In Gopi Nath v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620] this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 625, para 8) "8. ... Even the doing of separate, similar or diverse acts by several persons, so long as they are done in furtherance of a common intention, render each of such persons liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for the whole of the criminal action--be it that it was not overt or was only a covert act or merely an omission constituting an illegal omission. The section, therefore, has been held to be attracted even where the acts committed by the different confederates are different when it is established in one way or the other that all of them participated and engaged themselves in furtherance of the common intention which might be of a preconcerted or prearranged plan or one manifested or developed on the spur of the moment in the course of the commission of the offence. The common intention or the intention of the individual concerned in furtherance of the common intention could be proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. The ultimate decision, at any rate, would invariably depend upon the inferences deducible from the circumstances of each case." (emphasis supplied)
32. In view of the above observations, the evidence on record is to be evaluated. As observed, the material on record is not sufficient to conclude that the accused persons acted in concert to attack the injured person/complainant as well as her mother. On the basis of the above, it can be held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the offences with which the accused persons have been charged with.
Digitally signed byANKUR ANKUR CONCLUSION PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 17:00:06 +0530 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 41 of 42
33. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients of the offences beyond any iota of doubt. This Court hold that the required threshold has not been met by the prosecution and it has not been able to successfully prove that the accused persons have committed the offences under Section 323/34 IPC. The accused persons have been successful in punching holes on material aspects in the case set up by the prosecution. The inconsistencies brought out by the accused persons in the case of the prosecution are major and goes to the root of the matter.
34. Resultantly, the accused persons namely 1.
TARKESHWAR PANDEY S/o Rameshwar Pandey 2.
RAJESHWAR PANDEY S/o Rameshwar Pandey and 3. ANNU DEVI W/o Rajeshwar Pandey are hereby found not guilty and are accordingly ACQUITTED of the offences punishable under sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
35. Case property, if any, be disposed off as per law if not already done.
36. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 02.04.2026 in the presence of the accused persons.
The judgment contains 42 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 17:00:26 +0530 (ANKUR PANGHAL) JMFC-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 02/04/2026 Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 42 of 42