Delhi District Court
State vs Supkant on 28 January, 2026
State Vs. Supkant and others
FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Supkant and Others
FIR No.: 09/2011
PS: Anand Vihar
CNR No. DLSH020015592013
A Case Identification Number 80575/2016
B Name of the Complainant Ct. Radha Krishan
No. 4826/T
C Name of the accused & his 1. Supkant
parentage and address S/o Jai Pal
R/o H. No. 15/282,
Kalyan Puri,
Delhi.
2. Dinesh Tiwari
S/o Ram Prasad Tiwari
R/o H. No. 3, Hargovind
Enclave, Delhi.
3. Yogesh
S/o Pratap Bhan
R/o H. No. WA 106A,
Shakarpur
Delhi.
4. Sunil
S/o Bihari Lal
R/o H. No. 16/366,
Trilok Puri, Delhi
Digitally
signed by
MANISH MANISH
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.01.28
13:51:47
page No. 1 of 12
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Supkant and others
FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
D Date of commission of the 16.01.2011
offences
E Date of Institution of the case 27.08.2013
F Offences charged u/s 186/332/353/323/34
IPC
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Date of Pronouncement of 28.01.2026
judgment
I Final Order Convicted
J State represented by Mr. Sukhjeet Singh, Ld.
APP for the State.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present accused persons have appeared before the court to stand trial for the offences punishable u/s 186/332/353/323/34 IPC.
2. In brief, as per the prosecution case, on 16.01.2011, on receipt of DD No. 6A, SI Lallan Prasad reached Vikash Marg, in front of Deepak Memorial Hospital, Anand Vihar, Delhi, along with traffic staff. An LGV Eicher bearing registration No. DL-1LG-2486 was found stationed on the road causing obstruction to traffic. At about 8:15 AM, while the said vehicle was being removed with the help of duty crane No. DL-1LG-2192, driven Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Date:
JAIN page No. 2 of 12 2026.01.28 14:45:28 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Supkant and others FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar by Pradeep with helper Sanjay Singh, four persons came at the spot and intentionally obstructed the public servant Ct. Radha Kishan in discharge of his official duties. It is alleged that the said persons abused and assaulted SI Lallan Prasad, crane driver Pradeep and helper Sanjay Singh and during the incident, the government uniform of Ct. Radha Kishan was torn. The accused also caused injuries to the aforesaid public servant and the crane driver Pradeep along with the helper Sanjay Singh. A PCR call was made and with the assistance of police staff and public persons, the assailants were apprehended at the spot. On inquiry, they were identified as Sunil, Yogesh, Dinesh Tiwari and Supkant. The injured persons, namely Ct. Radha Kishan, Pradeep and Sanjay Singh were medically examined at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital and as per the respective MLCs, the injuries sustained by them were opined to be simple and blunt. During investigation, the vehicle i.e. LGV bearing number DL-1LG-2486 and relevant documents were seized. After completion of investigation, the vehicle and documents were released on superdari in compliance of court orders. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet under Sections 186/332/353/34 IPC was filed against all the accused. All the accused were admitted to court bail and have been facing trial.
3. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken vide order dated 27.08.2013 and copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons upon appearance of all the accused persons. Thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments on the point of charge. Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Date:
JAIN 2026.01.28
page No. 3 of 12 14:45:35
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Supkant and others
FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
4. Thereafter, charge was framed vide order dated 03.02.2015 for the offences u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC against all the accused persons. Separate charges have been framed against the accused persons for aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined nine witnesses.
6. PW-1 Rakesh Babu deposed that he is the registered owner of LGV Eicher No. DL-1LG-2486 which was seized in the present case. He stated that the vehicle was released to him on superdari vide Ex.PW1/B, pursuant to court order on his application Ex.PW1/A. He correctly identified the vehicle through photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex. P-4. He further stated that accused Supkant was driving the said vehicle on 16.01.2011 and correctly identified him in court. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
7. PW Retd. SI Brij Bhan deposed that on 18.07.2013, while posted as ASI at PS Anand Vihar, he was assigned further investigation of the case. He collected the MLCs of injured Sanjay Kumar and Pradeep Kumar and obtained medical opinion from Dr. Hedgewar Hospital wherein the injuries were opined to be simple in nature. He thereafter prepared and filed the charge-sheet before the Court. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity. Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Date:
JAIN 2026.01.28
page No. 4 of 12 14:45:41
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Supkant and others
FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
8. PW-2 Sanjay Singh deposed that in the year 2011, he was working as a helper on traffic crane No. DL-1LG-2192 at PS Vivek Vihar. On 16.01.2011, at about 8:00 AM, he along with crane driver Pradeep Kumar and Ct. Radha Kishan reached Vikas Marg near Deepak Memorial Hospital, where a Tata 407 was found standing on the road causing traffic obstruction. On the instructions of Ct. Radha Kishan, he started towing the said vehicle. He further deposed that while towing the vehicle, 10-12 persons came at the spot, caught hold of him and assaulted him with fist and leg blows. Ct. Radha Kishan and driver Pradeep reached the spot and tried to rescue him. Thereafter, a PCR van reached the spot and he was taken to Hedgewar Hospital for medical examination. The witness stated that he could not identify the assailants and also failed to identify the vehicle when shown photographs Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4, citing lapse of time. He specifically stated that none of the accused present in court were the persons who had assaulted him. The witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Ld. APP however, he denied apprehension of the accused persons at the spot and denied identifying them. He admitted that he was medically examined at Hedgewar Hospital. He was not cross- examined despite opportunity.
9. PW-3 Ct. Radha Kishan deposed that on 16.01.2011, while posted at Vivek Vihar Traffic Circle, he along with crane driver Pradeep and helper Sanjay Singh reached Vikas Marg near Deepak Memorial Hospital with traffic crane No. DL-1LG-2192. An LGV Eicher bearing No. Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 5 of 12 JAIN Date:
2026.01.28 14:45:50 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Supkant and others FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar DL-1LG-2486 was found standing on the main road causing traffic obstruction and was accordingly being towed. He further deposed that during the towing process, accused Subhkant, Yogesh, Dinesh and Sunil came at the spot, obstructed the official work, assaulted him as well as the crane driver and helper, and tore his traffic police uniform. He made a PCR call pursuant to which PCR officials reached the spot and all four accused were apprehended and taken to PS Anand Vihar. The witness further stated that his torn uniform shirt was seized by the IO and was later exhibited as Ex. P-5. He correctly identified all the accused in court and also identified the photographs of the offending vehicle Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4. He was cross-examined on behalf of all accused persons.
10.PW-4 ASI Pyare Lal deposed that on 16.01.2011, while posted as Duty Officer at PS Anand Vihar, he received a rukka from SI Lallan Prasad through Ct. Devender for registration of FIR. On the basis of the rukka, he registered FIR No. 09/11, made endorsement on the rukka, and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Devender for further investigation. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
11.PW-4A Pradeep Sharma deposed that on 16.01.2011, while working as crane driver with traffic police, he along with Ct. Radha Kishan and helper Sanjay reached Vikas Marg near Deepak Memorial Hospital, where an unattended Eicher truck No. DL-1LG-2486 was found causing obstruction. While towing the vehicle, accused Subhkant, Dinesh, Yogesh Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 6 of 12 JAIN Date:
2026.01.28 14:45:57 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Supkant and others FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar and Sunil came at the spot, assaulted the staff and tore the uniform of Ct. Radha Kishan. PCR was called and the injured were taken to Hedgewar Hospital. The witness identified all the accused persons. He was cross- examined on behalf of all accused persons.
12.PW-5 Ct. Devender deposed that on 16.01.2011, on receipt of DD No. 6A, he along with IO SI Lallan Prasad reached Vikas Marg near Deepak Memorial Hospital, where complainant Ct. Radha Kishan, crane driver Pradeep and helper Sanjay were present and a quarrel with accused Subhkant, Yogesh, Sunil and Dinesh had taken place during towing of their vehicle. He stated that on the directions of the IO, he got the injured persons medically examined and took the rukka to the police station for registration of FIR, after which he returned to the spot with copy of FIR. He further deposed that the LGV Eicher and documents were seized, all four accused were arrested and personally searched, and the torn uniform of Ct. Radha Kishan was also seized in his presence. He correctly identified all the accused in court. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
13.PW-6 Dr. Sachin Harit, CMO, Doctor Hedgewar Hospital deposed that on 16.01.2011, injured Sanjay Singh, Ct. Radha Kishan and Pradeep Kumar were brought to the hospital. He medically examined all three and prepared their MLCs, which are Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C. He stated that Sanjay Singh suffered tenderness over knee, Ct. Radha Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Date:
page No. 7 of 12 JAIN 2026.01.28
14:46:03
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Supkant and others
FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
Kishan suffered superficial abrasion over right hand, and Pradeep Kumar suffered tenderness over lower back. All injuries were opined to be simple in nature. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons.
14.PW-7 Dr. Natasha Gupta, Specialist (Radiologist) deposed that on 16.01.2011, while working as Radiologist at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, injured Pradeep Kumar and Sanjay Singh were referred to her department for X-ray. After examination, she prepared and signed the X-ray reports, which are Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B, bearing her signatures. She was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
15.PW-8 Ms. Bharti, Radiographer at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital deposed that on 16.01.2011, injured Pradeep Kumar and Sanjay Singh were referred to the Radiology Department for X-ray. She prepared the X-ray films of both patients and correctly identified the same in court. The X-ray films are Ex. PW8/A (colly). She was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
16.During the proceedings, vide separate statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C., all accused persons have admitted the genuineness of document i.e. complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.A1.
17.After completion of prosecution evidence, same was closed on 18.07.2025 and matter was listed for recording of statement of the Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Date:
page No. 8 of 12 JAIN 2026.01.28
14:46:09
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Supkant and others
FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
accused u/s 313 Cr.PC.
18.Statement u/s 313 Cr.PC of all accused persons were recorded wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons chose not to lead DE. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
19.I have heard the final arguments led by Ld. counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State and perused the record.
20.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is only upon the successful discharge of this burden that any onus may shift to the accused to substantiate his defence.
21.To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses but the material witness of prosecution are the injured persons i.e. PW-2 Sanjay Singh, PW3 Ct. Radha Kishan and PW4A Pradeep Sharma. PW-3 and PW-4A deposed on similar lines in support of the prosecution case, wherein they deposed that all the accused persons obstructed Ct. Radha Kishan from discharging his public function i.e. from towing the Eicher vehicle bearing number DL1L G 2486, which was obstructing the passage and in doing so, all accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to all Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Date:
page No. 9 of 12 JAIN 2026.01.28
14:46:16
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Supkant and others
FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
the injured persons. All the accused persons were duly identified by PW3 and PW4A and the medical reports qua the injury inflicted upon them corroborates the testimony given by them.
22.It is argued on behalf of accused persons that PW2 was unable to identify the accused persons which contradicts the version put forward by the prosecution. The testimony of PW2 is consistent with PW3 and PW4A with respect to towing the above stated vehicle and injury being inflicted by certain persons present there. However, it has been denied by PW2 that the accused persons were the one who inflicted the injuries or committed the offence alleged by the prosecution. PW2 was cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State. However, he denied all the suggestions put forward by the State.
23.In this context, Gudu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2012), Criminal Appeal No. 862 of 2008, wherein the court held that evidence of a hostile witness need not be completely rejected only because he has turned hostile. The court must however be careful in accepting his testimony and look for its corroboration, to the extent possible.
24.In Karuppanna Thevar Vs. State of Tamilnadu (1976) 1 SCC 31, it was established that the testimony of a hostile witness should not be dismissed outright. Instead, courts should treat such testimony with caution and seek corroborative evidence to substantiate the claims. Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.28 page No. 10 of 12 14:46:22 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Supkant and others FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
25.In Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 389, the court emphasized that even when a witness is classified as hostile, their evidence remains admissible and can form the basis of a conviction if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
26.In the present case, PW-2 has not denied the occurrence of the incident in question. It is only with respect to identification of the accused persons, that the deposition of PW2 does not support the prosecution case. Merely stating that the accused persons were not the persons who caused the injury cannot solely persuade the court to discard the testimonies given by PW3 and PW4A. The testimony of PW2 has been recorded in the year 2017, i.e. six years after the date of incident. There is always a likelihood that a person may not be able to recollect or recognize the accused persons after a lapse of so many years. The accused persons have been duly identified by two other injured persons and the court finds no reason to disbelieve the testimonies given by them. The injuries inflicted upon the injured persons have been duly corroborated by PW6, PW7 and PW8.
27.In light of the consistent, cogent, and corroborated evidence brought on record, and the absence of any material contradiction or defence evidence capable of creating reasonable doubt, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN MANISH Date:
JAIN 2026.01.28
page No. 11 of 12 14:46:28
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Supkant and others
FIR No.: 09/2011 PS: Anand Vihar
28.In view of aforesaid discussion, all accused persons are convicted for offences punishable under sections 186/332/353/34 IPC qua injured Ct. Radha Kishan and for offences punishable under sections 323/34 IPC qua injured Sanjay and Pradeep. Copy of this judgement be given to all the accused persons free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN
Announced in the Open Court JAIN Date:
today i.e. on dated 28.01.2026 2026.01.28
14:46:36
+0530
(MANISH JAIN)
ACJM:SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
page No. 12 of 12
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi