Delhi District Court
State vs Govind Saini @ Nikhil on 26 March, 2025
State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-001381-2016
Sessions Case No. 57463/2016
FIR No. 141/2016
PS: Anand Parbat
U/s 307/324/452 IPC
State Vs. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
a) Date of commission of offence : 24/02/2016
b) Name of the complainant : Sh. Inderjeet @ Sonu @
Jonty
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash
c) Name of accused and address : Govind Saini @ Nikhil
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Saini
R/o H.No. B-1, 169,
Aman Vihar, Sultan Puri,
New Delhi
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 307/324/452 IPC
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : CONVICTED
Date of institution of the case : 26/05/2016
Date of committal : 09/06/2016
Date on which judgment was
reserved : 05/03/2025
Date of judgment : 26/03/2025
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26
17:10:06
+0530
FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.1/75
State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 24/02/2016 at about 9:15 PM at H. No. 317, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Parbat, accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had committed the house trespass into the house of the complainant Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and his family members and accused had caused injuries as mentioned in the MLC to the complainant Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty with half part of scissor and iron rod. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the aforesaid time, date and place, the accused had also caused the injuries as mentioned in the MLC to Suraj @ Thakur with half part of scissor and iron rod with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that injury would have died, he would have been guilty of murder.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:10:33 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.2/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil REGISTRATION OF FIR, INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE-SHEET
2. In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant Sh. Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty, FIR bearing No. 141/2016 Police Station Anand Parbat u/s. 307/324/452 IPC was got registered by the Police of Police Station Anand Parbat. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on completion of the investigation, the present charge- sheet was submitted in the Court of Ld. ACMM, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 26/05/2016 for trial of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil.
COGNIZANCE
3. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. ACMM vide order dated 26/05/2016.
SUPPLY OF COPIES AND COMMITTAL
4. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil in compliance of section 207 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:10:43 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.3/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide order dated 07/06/2016 passed by the Ld. ACMM, the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
5. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil, charge for the offence u/s. 307/324/452 IPC was framed against the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case had examined 18 witnesses. The prosecution had examined the following witnesses:-
(1) PW-1 Sh. Inderjeet Singh @ Sonu @ Jonty (2) PW-2 Ct. Arun (3) PW-3 Ct. Kuldeep Singh (4) PW-4 HC Deepak Rana (5) PW-5 Inspector Pankaj Kumar Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:10:53 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.4/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil (6) PW-6 Sh. Thakur (7) PW-7 Smt. Priyanka (8) PW-8 SI Jagrup Singh (9) PW-9 Smt. Kela Devi (10) PW-10 Sh. Mangal Sain (11) PW-11 ASI Rajender Kumar (12) PW-12 Sh. Roop Singh, Medical Record Clerk, Lady Hardinge Hospital, Delhi (13) PW-13 Dr. Vandana, Lady Hardinge Hospital, Delhi (14) PW-14 Dr. A Chakravarti, Lady Hardinge Hospital, Delhi (15) PW-15 Sh. Roop Singh, Medical Record Clerk, Lady Hardinge Hospital, Delhi (16) PW-16 Retired SI Raj Kumar (17) PW-17 SI Manish Tyagi (18) PW-18 HC Shailash DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION
7. (1) Complaint/statement of the complainant Ex.PW-1/A Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:11:02 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.5/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil (2) Photographs of the spot Ex.PW-2/A-1 to Ex.PW-2/A-13 (3) Negatives of the aforesaid photographs Ex.PW-2/A-14 (colly) (4) Sketch of scissor Ex.PW-3/A (5) Seizure memo of half part of scissor Ex.PW-3/B (6) Seizure memo of iron rod Ex.PW-3/C (7) Seizure memo of three pieces of sofa cover Ex.PW-3/D (8) Scene of Crime Team Report Ex.PW-5/A (9) Site plan Ex.PW-7/A (10) Rukka Ex.PW-8/A (11) GD No. 34A Ex.PW-11/A (12) FIR Ex.PW-11/B (13) Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-11/C (14) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-11/D (15) Medical treatment record of Inderjeet @ Sonu Ex.PW-12/A (colly) Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:11:09 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.6/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil (16) Medical treatment record of Thakur Ex.PW-12/B (colly) (17) MLC of Inderjeet @ Sonu Ex.PW-13/A (18) MLC of Thakur Ex.PW-13/B (19) ENT notes Ex.PW-15/A (20) Entry in register no. 19 Ex.PW-16/A (21) Seizure memo of clothes of Inderjeet Ex.PW-17/A (22) Seizure memo of clothes of Thakur Ex.PW-17/B (23) Arrest memo of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil Ex.PW-17/C (24) Personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW-17/D (25) Disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW-17/E It is pertinent to mention here that statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-7 Smt. Priyanka Ex.PW-7/DA and statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-10 Sh. Mangal Sain Ex.PW-9/DA were also exhibited during the course of cross-examination of PW-7 and PW-10 respectively.
Apart from aforesaid documentary evidence, the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:11:26 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.7/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil prosecution has also relied upon the other evidence (case property) i.e. half part of scissor Ex.P-1, iron rod Ex.P-2, three pieces of sofa cover Ex.P-3 (colly) and green colour T-shirt of the complainant Ex.P-4.
8. TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
(i) PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that prior to the date of incident, he was working in a chemist shop in front of Saraswati Hospital and accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil was also working in the same shop and with the passage of time, they became friends and they worked together for about 1-1 ½ years. Thereafter, accused left the job at the aforesaid shop and started supplying medicines to different medical stores, after purchasing the same from Bhagirath Palace and accused used to visit his residence being his friend. Later on, he came to know that accused had an evil eye on his wife and accused enticed his wife and on 08/02/2016 took her to Jaipur. He lodged missing report of his wife in this respect in P.S. Anand Parbat. On 18/02/2016, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:11:35 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.8/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil his wife returned back and he produced his wife in the police station and thereafter, they started living peacefully. On 24/02/2016 at about 9:15 p.m., he alongwith his friend namely Mangal Sain were sitting in his house and talking to each other and his wife was also present in the same room. In the meantime, accused Nikhil @ Govind Saini had rushed inside his room and started abusing him and took out one scissor type knife from his bag and inflicted injury with that knife upon him. He tried to save himself but his under arm got injured. His wife had raised alarm and rushed downstairs for help and his brother rushed to his room to rescue him but accused inflicted injuries on his neck and back with aforesaid knife and iron rod. Accused had beaten him with iron rod also and accused had inflicted injuries upon him and his brother with intention to kill them. When his friend Mangal Sain was trying to rescue them, he also got slightly injured. Accused was apprehended by him, his brother and his friend Mangal Sain with great difficulty and thereafter, they took him downstairs and accused was beaten by the public persons. He had made call at no.100 and police officials arrived at the spot and thereafter, they Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:11:43 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.9/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil were taken to Lady Hardinge hospital and his statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded by the I.O. in the hospital.
PW-1 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(ii) PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016, he was posted as Constable at Crime Team, Central District, P.S. Pahar Ganj and was working as a Photographer. On that day, In-charge Crime Team SI Pankaj Kumar had received D.D. No. 34A and thereafter, he alongwith Crime Team reached at the spot at House No. 317, Gali No. 2, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi where they met with SI Jagroop. At the instance of SI Jagroop, SI Pankaj had inspected the spot and he clicked photographs from different angles as per direction of IO and I/C Crime Team and SI Pankaj handed over Crime Team Report to the IO. On 02/03/2016, he had joined the investigation of the present case with IO and he had handed over 13 photographs Ex.PW2/A-1 to Ex.PW2/A-13 to the IO, which were clicked by him on 24/02/2016.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:11:51 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.10/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil PW-2 was not cross-examined by the accused, despite opportunity.
(iii) PW-3 in his testimony had deposed that on 25/02/2016, he had joined the investigation with IO SI Manish Kumar.
PW-3 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(iv) PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016 at about 9:15 p.m., Duty Officer H. Ct. Rajender informed him that a quarrel was going on in House No.317, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nagar and asked him to reach there and he had reached there within five minutes. By that time, PCR also reached there and three injured persons including accused were taken to the hospital by the PCR officials. He remained at the spot and after some time, SI Jagrup along with Ct. Shailesh reached at the spot and thereafter, left for the hospital while leaving him at the spot. After some time, SI Jagrup returned at the spot and crime team also reached at the spot and inspected Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:11:59 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.11/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil the spot and photographs of the spot were clicked by the photographer of crime team. Further investigation of the case was handed over to SI Manish and his statement was recorded by the IO.
PW-4 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(v) PW-5 in his testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016, he was posted as In-Charge, Crime Team, Central District. On that day, he had received information from Control Room to reach at the spot i.e. House No.317, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi. Thereafter, he along with Crime Team consisting of ASI S.M. Pandey (Fingerprint Expert) and Ct. Arun (Photographer) reached at the spot in Government vehicle. They reached at the spot at about 11:15 p.m and there they met SI Jagrup and his staff. Thereafter, they went to the spot i.e. first floor of the aforesaid house. Injured were already taken to the hospital and blood stains were found lying on the floor of the first floor and the staircase. Chance-prints could not be lifted Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:12:06 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.12/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil as the same were not found and the photographs of the spot were taken from different angles by the photographer. He had prepared scene of Crime Visit Report Ex.PW-5/A and handed over the same to IO/SI Jagrup and later on, his statement was recorded by the IO.
PW-5 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(vi) PW-6 in his testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016, he was present at his residence i.e. ground floor of House No.317, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi and on that day, at about 09:15 p.m., he had heard sound of shouting in scuffle (Habad Dabad) and at the same time, his sister-in-law namely Priyanka rushed downstairs. She was screaming and she opened the door of the stairs at ground floor.
Thereafter, he rushed upstairs and saw that his brother Inderjeet was lying at the floor of first floor and Mangal Sen was also present in the said room and accused Govind Saini was abusing his brother. Accused Govind Saini had attacked on his brother Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:12:21 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.13/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil with a scissors near his armpit and he tried to rescue his brother and on that, accused attacked him with the said scissors on his neck and back near shoulder. He fell down on the floor and accused was also beating them with iron pipe, which he was having with him. They somehow managed to apprehend the accused and brought him downstairs. Public persons, who had gathered downstairs by that time, gave beatings to the accused. His brother called at 100 number and PCR Van reached at the spot and they were taken to the hospital by the PCR officials. His statement was recorded by the IO. Accused Govind Saini had attacked him, his brother and Mangal Sain with the intention to kill them.
PW-6 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(vii) PW-7 in her testimony had deposed that on 25/02/2016, she had joined the investigation of the present case with the IO and had stated to the IO that earlier, her husband Inderjeet and his friend Govind Saini were working together on a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:12:29 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.14/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil chemist shop. Accused Govind Saini had evil eye upon her and he had enticed her and took her to Jaipur. Accused was having one side liking for her and earlier also he had blackmailed her and he got prepared her forged ID showing her as his wife. After returning from Jaipur, her husband accepted her and they started living happily. On 24/02/2016 at about 9:15 p.m., she alongwith her husband and his friend Mangal Sain were present in a room on the first floor of their house. All of a sudden, accused Govind Saini reached there and started abusing and when her husband objected, accused took out a half scissor from a bag, which he was carrying and attacked her husband and was threatening to kill her husband. When accused had attacked upon her husband, her husband turned and the scissor fell upon the left side of his chest/underarm (bagal). She raised alarm and rushed downstairs and upon hearing her cries, her brother-in-law namely Thakur rushed to the first floor and she also rushed to the first floor.
When her brother-in-law tried to rescue her husband, accused had attacked upon him with the scissor and he sustained injury on his neck. Mangal Sain had also received injury on his abdomen when Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:12:43 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.15/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil he was trying to rescue her husband. Anyhow, they managed to apprehend the accused and they took him downstairs and in the meantime, many public persons had gathered outside their house and they gave beatings to the accused. Someone called at 100 number and after some time, PCR van arrived at the spot and took away her husband, Thakur and accused Govind to the hospital. Police officials came to her house and they inspected the spot. After some time, IO had also arrived and he had prepared site plan Ex.PW-7/A at her instance. She had handed over the blood stained half scissor, iron pipe and three pieces of blood stained sofa cover to the IO and the same were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW-3/B, Ex.PW-3/C and Ex.PW-3/D respectively and her statement was recorded by the IO.
PW-7 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(viii) PW-8 in his testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016, duty officer handed over him copy of DD No. 34A, which was regarding a quarrel at Gali no. 2, H. No. 317, Than Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:12:53 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.16/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil Singh Nagar and after receiving that information, he alongwith Ct. Shailesh reached at the said address and in the meantime, HC Deepak, who was the beat HC came at the spot. At the spot, he found three persons in injured condition and names of those persons came to know as Inderjeet, Thakur and Nikhil and all the three persons were shifted through PCR van to the Lady Hardinge hospital. He had left Ct. Deepak at the spot for guarding the spot and he reached Lady Hardinge Hospital. At the hospital, he had obtained the MLCs of injured persons Govind @ Nikhil, Inderjeet and Thakur. On the MLCs of Inderjeet and Thakur, the doctor had opined alleged history of assault, nature of injuries under observation, fresh sharp. He had deputed Ct. Shailesh for guarding the accused Govind @ Nikhil and had also made enquiries from injured Inderjeet and he recorded the statement of Inderjeet @ Sonu Ex. PW-1/A. After deputing Ct. Shailesh with accused, he came back at the spot. Crime team was called at the spot and the spot was got inspected through the crime team officials and after inspection, the Crime Team In- charge had prepared report Ex. PW-5/A and handed over the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:13:00 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.17/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil same to him. He had prepared the rukka Ex. PW-8/A and thereafter, he reached at the police station and got registered the present case. Thereafter, the investigation of present case was marked to SI Manish for further investigation and he had handed over the crime team report to SI Manish.
PW-8 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(ix) PW-9 in her testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016, she was present at her house. Accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil was the friend of her son Inderjeet. During the night hours, accused Govind Saini came to their house, at that time, she and her son Thakur were present on the ground floor of their house. At that time, her another son Inderjeet, his wife Priyanka and one of their neighbour namely Mangal Sain were present at the first floor. Accused Govind Saini after entering their house went to first floor and at that time he was carrying one scissor, two bottles containing acid and one iron rod with him and upon reaching at the first floor, he started quarreling with her son Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:13:07 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.18/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil Inderjeet and during the quarrel, accused Govind struck scissor blow on the lower abdomen of her son Inderjeet. Upon hearing the noises, her another son Thakur also went to the first floor but accused Govind also assaulted Thakur with the same scissor over his neck. They managed to apprehend accused Govind at the spot and her son Inderjeet made a call at 100 number and PCR van took both her injured sons to Lady Hardinge hospital, where both her sons were medically examined. Her son Inderjeet remained admitted in the said hospital for about 15 days whereas, her another son Thakur remained admitted in the said hospital for about 10 days.
PW-9 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(x) PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that in the year 2016, he was residing at premises no. 319, Gali No. 2, Dhan Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi and he was an electrician by profession. On 24/02/2016, he went to the house of Inderjeet for doing electricity repairing work and he had reached at the said Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:13:16 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.19/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil house on or about 9 PM. He went to the first floor of house of Inderjeet and at that time, he, Inderjeet, his wife and their daughter were present at the first floor. Suddenly, accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil came to the said house and accused was in possession of one scissor, two bottles containing acid and one iron rod with him and upon reaching at the first floor, he started beating Priyanka. Upon seeing the same, he and Inderjeet tried to interfere but accused Govind struck scissor blow on the lower abdomen of Inderjeet and upon hearing the noises, Thakur i.e. younger brother of Inderjeet also came to the first floor but accused Govind also assaulted Thakur with the same scissor over his neck. They managed to apprehend accused Govind at the spot and Inderjeet made a call at 100 number and PCR van took both injured persons namely Inderjeet and Thakur to Lady Hardinge hospital, where they were medically examined. During the assault, accused Govind had also assaulted Inderjeet with the iron rod. After apprehending accused at the spot, they handed over accused Govind to the police. During investigation, IO had recorded his statement.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26
17:13:25
+0530
FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.20/75
State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
PW-10 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xi) PW-11 in his testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016 at about 9:24 PM, wireless operator came to DO room and gave an information regarding quarrel at premises no.
317, Gali No. 2, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat and accordingly, he lodged GD No. 34A Ex.PW-11/A in computer. He had handed over the copy of said GD to SI Shiv Charan, who alongwith Ct. Shailender left for the spot and he had also informed the contents of said GD to SI Jagroop. Thereafter, on the same day at about 11:50 PM, SI Jagroop handed over him rukka and on the basis of said rukka, he went to computer room and got FIR No. 141/2016 Ex.PW-11/B registered through computer operator and also made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-11/C. He had also issued certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-11/D and after registration of FIR, he had handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Manish for investigation purposes.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:13:45 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.21/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil PW-11 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xii) PW-12, who was the Medical Record Clerk, during the course of his examination, had produced the original medical treatment record including the discharge summary of Inderjeet @ Sonu and Thakur Ex.PW-12/A (colly) Ex.PW-12/B (colly) respectively.
PW-12 was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused, despite opportunity.
(xiii) PW-13 in her testimony had deposed that Dr. Mannan had left the services of the hospital and she had seen him signing and writing during official work. On 24/02/2016, patients Inderjeet @ Sonu and Thakur were medically examined by Dr. Prashant and after medical examination, the said patients were referred to SR surgery. From surgical side, both the said patients were medically examined by Dr. Mannan. Dr. Mannan had opined nature of injuries to be simple on MLC of Inderjeet Ex.PW-13/A and also opined the nature of injury as simple on the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:13:54 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.22/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil MLC of Thakur Ex.PW-13/B. Surgical notes Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-12/B of Inderjeet @ Sonu and Thakur bore the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Mannan.
PW-13 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xiv) PW-14 in his testimony had deposed that he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ravinder Chauhan, who was working with ENT department as Senior Resident in the year 2016 as he had worked in the department. In the MLC of injured Thakur Ex.PW-13/B, Dr. Ravinder Chauhan had mentioned that the opinion regarding nature of injury reserved and the patient was advised to follow up in ENT OPD.
PW-14 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xv) PW-15 in his testimony had deposed that Dr. Prashant has left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known and MLCs Ex.PW-13/A and Ex.PW-13/B bear the signatures and observations of Dr. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:14:03 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.23/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil Prashant. MLC register is also containing the ENT notes Ex.PW-15/A prepared by Dr. Ravinder Chauhan, who left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known.
PW-15 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xvi) PW-16 in his testimony had deposed that on 25/02/2016, SI Manish Kumar had deposited three sealed pullandas stated to be containing clothes/Sofa covers alongwith sample seals and one sealed pullanda stated to be containing iron pipe and one sealed pullanda stated to be containing half part of scissor and he had made entry at serial no. 2087 Ex.PW-16/A in register no. 19.
PW-16 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xvii) PW-17 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening night of 24-25/02/2016 at about 12:30 AM, duty officer informed him about the registration of present FIR Digitally and signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:14:22 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.24/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him as the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him by SHO PS Anand Parbat. Thereafter, he reached LHMC hospital, where he had met with Ct. Shailesh, who was deployed with accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil, who was under treatment. Thereafter, he had collected exhibits i.e. sealed clothes of both the injured persons namely Thakur and Inderjeet and he had seized both the exhibits separately through separate seizure memos Ex.PW-17/A and Ex.PW-17/B. Thereafter, he had met with both the injured persons namely Inderjeet and Thakur, who were under treatment at LHMC hospital. Thereafter, he had left for the spot and reached at the spot, where Ct. Kuldeep and complainant Priyanka were present. At the instance of complainant Priyanka, he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW-7/A and thereafter, complainant Priyanka produced Sofa cover, which was blood stained and he had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/D. Thereafter, complainant Priyanka also produced an iron pipe and half part of scissor and he had seized the same vide seizure memos Ex.PW-3/C & Ex.PW-3/B. Before seizing the scissor, he had Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:14:32 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.25/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil prepared its sketch Ex.PW-3/A after putting on a white blank paper and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Kuldeep took the case property to the PS and deposited the same in Malkhana. On the same day at about 5:00 PM, he was present in police station when Ct. Shailesh alongwith accused Govind Saini came to the PS after his discharge from hospital. He had interrogated the accused and arrested and personally searched him vide memos Ex.PW-17/C & Ex.PW-17/D. He had also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW-17/E. He had recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On the next day, accused was produced before the Court concerned and was remanded to JC. After about 45 to 60 days, he had collected the result on MLC of both the injured persons and after completion of investigation, he had prepared the charge-sheet and submitted before the Court for trial.
PW-17 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xviii) PW-18 in his testimony had deposed that on Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:14:40 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.26/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil 24/02/2016, he had joined the investigation with SI Jagroop and thereafter, he had joined the investigation with SI Manish.
Addl. PP for the State was permitted to put the leading question to PW-18 and Addl. PP for the State was permitted for the same. PW-18 was cross-examined by Addl. PP for the State. PW-18 was also cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
9. Separate statement of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations against him and rebutted the prosecution evidence against him and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he has no connection with the commission of offence of the present case. It was also stated that complainant Inderjeet was his friend as he was working with him and due to the said reason, he used to visit the house of Inderjeet. It was also stated that Inderjeet was having suspicion that he and his wife were having affair. It was also stated that in fact, he and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:14:55 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.27/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil wife of Inderjeet were not having any affair. It was also stated that on the date of incident, in order to take the revenge of suspicion, he was called by Inderjeet at his house and he was mercilessly beaten by Inderjeet, Thakur and Mangal Sain at the house of complainant Inderjeet. It was also stated that due to the aforesaid reason, he had been falsely implicated in the present case by Inderjeet and his family members. It was also stated that he does not want to lead evidence in his defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. In the present case, accused had not led defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. This Court heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil and carefully perused the entire record including the testimonies on record.
During the course of final arguments, it was Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:15:06 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.28/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil submitted by Substitute Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution and from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil be convicted for the offences as mentioned in the charge. On the other hand, during the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil be acquitted in the present case.
Counsel for the accused in support of his contentions has relied upon the following case laws:-
1. Kumar V. State {Criminal Appeal No. 409/2017 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 11/05/2018} Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:15:15 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.29/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
2. State of Uttrakhand V. Jairnail Singh {Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1651/2015 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 13/11/2017}
3. Sumit Gupta & Ors. V. State NCT of Delhi {CRL. A. 54/2011, 55/2011 & 56/2011 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 15/10/2014}
4. State V. Raje Ram & Ors. {CRL. LP 12/2011, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 28/02/2011}
5. State of Himachal Pradesh V. Durgu Ram & Anr.
{Criminal Appeal No. 495/2007 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 05/05/2015} In order to bring home conviction the prosecution has to show on record an unbroken chain of events leading to commission of actual offence. Further, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case in such a manner so as to bring it outside the pale of any reasonable doubt.
12. Law relating to appreciation of evidence of the witnesses has been elaborated by the Hon'ble High Court of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:15:23 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.30/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil Delhi in case titled as "Satish @ Bombaiya Vs. State" { 44 (1991) DLT 561} and it was held that :-
"........ While appreciating the evidence of a witness approach must be whether the evidence of the witness, read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks, and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:15:37 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.31/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defense may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
13. Law relating to appreciation of ocular evidence has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Shahaja @ Shahjahan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra" {Crl. Appeal No. 739/2017 decided on 14/07/2022} and it was held that :-
"27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under :-
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:15:45 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.32/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:16:05 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.33/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. 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. VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:16:16 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.34/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:16:22 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.35/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:16:33 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.36/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
14. FINDINGS
(i) Testimonies of complainant and injured In the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 307/324/452 IPC was framed against the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 24/02/2016 at about 9:15 PM at H. No. 317, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Parbat, accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had committed the house trespass into the house of the complainant Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and his family members and accused had caused injuries as mentioned in the MLC to the complainant Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty with half part of scissor and iron rod. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the aforesaid time, date and place, the accused had also caused the injuries as mentioned in the MLC to Suraj @ Thakur with half part of scissor and iron rod with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that injury would have died, he would have been guilty of murder.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26
17:16:46
+0530
FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.37/75
State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
PW-1 is the complainant/injured and PW-6 is the injured in the present case.
The sanctity of testimony of injured witness has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of MP" {(2010) 10 SCC 259} and it was held that:-
"26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.......
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:16:55 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.38/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein".
Law relating to appreciation of injured eye-witness has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra" {(2023) 13 SCC 365} and it was held that:-
" When the evidence of an injured eye- witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:-
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:17:04 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.39/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
(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".
PW-1 and PW-6 in their testimonies have categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how the offence was committed by the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil at the relevant time, date and place.
PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that prior to the date of incident, he was working in a chemist shop in front of Saraswati Hospital and accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil was also working in the same shop and with the passage of time, they became friends and they worked together for about 1-1 ½ years. He had also deposed that thereafter, accused left the job at the aforesaid shop and started supplying medicines to different medical stores, after purchasing the same from Bhagirath Palace Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:17:12 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.40/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil and accused used to visit his residence being his friend. He had also deposed that later on, he came to know that accused had an evil eye on his wife and accused enticed his wife and on 08/02/2016 took her to Jaipur. He had also deposed that he had lodged missing report of his wife in this respect in P.S. Anand Parbat. He had also deposed that on 18/02/2016, his wife returned back and he produced his wife in the police station and thereafter, they started living peacefully. He had also deposed that on 24/02/2016 at about 9:15 p.m., he alongwith his friend namely Mangal Sain were sitting in his house and talking to each other and his wife was also present in the same room and in the meantime, accused Nikhil @ Govind Saini had rushed inside his room and started abusing him and took out one scissor type knife from his bag and inflicted injury with that knife upon him and he tried to save himself but his under arm got injured. He had also deposed that his wife had raised alarm and rushed downstairs for help and his brother rushed to his room to rescue him but accused inflicted injuries on his neck and back with aforesaid knife and iron rod. He had also deposed that accused had beaten him with Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:17:20 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.41/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil iron rod also and accused had inflicted injuries upon him and his brother with intention to kill them. He had also deposed that when his friend Mangal Sain was trying to rescue them, he also got slightly injured. He had also deposed that accused was apprehended by him, his brother and his friend Mangal Sain with great difficulty and thereafter, they took him downstairs and accused was beaten by the public persons. He had also deposed that he had made call at no.100 and police officials arrived at the spot and thereafter, they were taken to Lady Hardinge hospital and his statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded by the I.O. in the hospital.
PW-6 in his testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016, he was present at his residence i.e. ground floor of House No.317, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi and on that day, at about 09:15 p.m., he had heard sound of shouting in scuffle (Habad Dabad) and at the same time, his sister-in-law namely Priyanka rushed downstairs. He had also deposed that she was screaming and she opened the door of the stairs at ground floor and thereafter, he rushed upstairs and saw Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:17:27 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.42/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil that his brother Inderjeet was lying at the floor of first floor and Mangal Sen was also present in the said room and accused Govind Saini was abusing his brother. He had also deposed that accused Govind Saini had attacked on his brother with a scissors near his armpit and he tried to rescue his brother and on that, accused attacked him with the said scissors on his neck and back near shoulder and he fell down on the floor and accused was also beating them with iron pipe, which he was having with him. He had also deposed that they somehow managed to apprehend the accused and brought him downstairs. He had also deposed that public persons, who had gathered downstairs by that time, gave beatings to the accused. He had also deposed that his brother called at 100 number and PCR Van reached at the spot and they were taken to the hospital by the PCR officials. He had also deposed that accused Govind Saini had attacked him, his brother and Mangal Sain with the intention to kill them.
Complainant/injured/PW-1 and injured/PW-6 have duly supported the case of the prosecution.
Complainant/injured/PW-1 in his testimony had duly proved on Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:17:34 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.43/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil record the complaint Ex. PW-1/A, on the basis of which, the present case FIR was got registered. Complainant/injured/PW-1 in his complaint Ex.PW-1/A has specifically mentioned the name of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil as assailant. Name of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil has also been specifically mentioned in the FIR Ex.PW-11/B. The contents of complaint Ex.PW-1/A and FIR Ex.PW-11/B have been duly proved on record and corroborated by the complainant/injured/PW-1, injured/PW-6, eye-witnesses and other prosecution witnesses.
Testimonies of complainant/injured/PW-1 and injured/PW-6 are corroborated with the testimonies of eye-
witnesses/public witnesses and other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/versions of complainant/injured/PW-1 and injured/PW-6. In the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-6, no material contradiction/inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones which are but natural.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:17:41 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.44/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
(ii) Testimonies of public and eye-witnesses PW-7 is the wife of the complainant/PW-1. PW-9 is the mother of PW-1 and PW-6. PW-10 is stated to be the neighbour of the complainant. PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 are stated to be the eye-witnesses of the incident.
PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 in their testimonies have also categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how the offence was committed by the accused at the relevant time, date and place. PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 in their testimonies have deposed almost same facts as deposed by complainant/injured/PW-1 and injured/PW-6 in their testimonies.
PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 have also duly supported the case of the prosecution. Testimonies of PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 are corroborated with the testimonies of PW-1, PW-6 and other concerned prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/versions of PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10. In the cross-
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26
17:17:48
+0530
FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.45/75
State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
examination of PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10, no material contradiction/ inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones which are but natural.
(iii) Identity of the accused PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-17 during the course of their testimonies had duly identified the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil. PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-17 in their testimonies have specifically mentioned the name of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil. Counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had not put any question in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to dispute the identity of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil. Hence, identity of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil is duly established by the prosecution.
(iv) Presence of the accused PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 in their testimonies have specifically deposed that the accused Govind Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:17:57 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.46/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil Saini @ Nikhil was present at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. Counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had not put any question in the cross-examination of the PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 to dispute the presence of the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. Even otherwise, accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. had admitted his presence at the house of the complainant on the date of incident. Hence, presence of the accused at the place of the incident at the relevant time and date is duly established by the prosecution.
(v) Identity of the case property/ weapon of offence During the course of examination of concerned prosecution witnesses, half part of scissor Ex.P-1, iron rod Ex.P-2, three pieces of sofa cover Ex.P-3 (colly) and green colour T-shirt of the complainant Ex.P-4 were produced in the Court and same were duly identified by the prosecution witnesses. During the course of examination of PW-1, PW-3, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 weapons of offence i.e., half part Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:18:06 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.47/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil of scissor Ex.P-1 and iron rod Ex.P-2 were produced and same were identified by the aforesaid witnesses. During the course of examination of PW-1, PW-3, PW-6 & PW-7, case property i.e. three pieces of sofa cover Ex.P-3 (colly) were produced and same were identified by the aforesaid witnesses. During the course of examination of PW-1, PW-6 & PW-7, case property i.e. green colour T-shirt of the complainant Ex.P-4 was produced and same was identified by the aforesaid witnesses. During the course of examination of PW-17, identity of aforesaid case properties was not disputed by the accused and it was submitted by the accused that he is not disputing the identity of the aforesaid case property.
Counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had not put any question in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses to dispute the identity of the aforesaid case properties i.e. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. Seizure memos of weapons of offence i.e., half part of scissor and iron rod Ex.PW-3/B and Ex.PW-3/C respectively were duly proved on record by the prosecution. Sketch of weapon of offence i.e. half part of scissor Ex.PW-3/A was duly proved on record by the prosecution. Seizure memos of three Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:18:15 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.48/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil pieces of sofa cover and blood stained clothes of the complainant and injured Ex.PW-3/D, Ex.PW-17/A and Ex.PW-17/B respectively were duly proved on record by the prosecution.
Hence, identity of case properties i.e. half part of scissor Ex.P-1, iron rod Ex.P-2, three pieces of sofa cover Ex.P-3 (colly) and green colour T-shirt of the complainant Ex.P-4 has been duly established/proved by the prosecution.
(vi) Medical witnesses PW-12, PW-13, PW-14 and PW-15 are the medical witnesses examined in the present case.
PW-12 and PW-15 is the Medical Record Clerk, who duly proved on record the medical documents/record i.e. Ex.PW-12/A, Ex.PW-12/B and Ex.PW15/A. PW-13 is the medical witness, who appeared on behalf of Dr. Mannan. PW-13 in her testimony had deposed that on 24/02/2016, patients Inderjeet @ Sonu and Thakur were medically examined by Dr. Prashant and after medical examination, the said patients were referred to SR surgery. She Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:18:21 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.49/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil had also deposed that from surgical side, both the said patients were medically examined by Dr. Mannan and Dr. Mannan had opined nature of injuries to be simple on MLCs Ex.PW-13/A and Ex.PW-13/B of Inderjeet and Thakur respectively. She had also deposed that surgical notes Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-12/B of Inderjeet @ Sonu and Thakur bore the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Mannan.
PW-14 is the medical witness, who appeared on behalf of Dr. Ravinder Chauhan. He had deposed that in the MLC of injured Thakur Ex.PW-13/B, Dr. Ravinder Chauhan had mentioned that the opinion regarding nature of injury reserved and the patient was advised to follow up in ENT OPD.
In the MLC Ex.PW-13/A, injuries sustained by the complainant/PW-1 Inderjeet @ Sonu have been specifically mentioned and nature of injury has been opined as simple.
In the MLC Ex.PW-13/B, injuries sustained by the injured/PW-6 Thakur have been specifically mentioned and nature of injury has been opined as simple.
MLC Ex.PW-13/A of the complainant/injured/PW-1 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:18:30 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.50/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil and MLC Ex.PW-13/B of injured/PW-6 have been duly proved on record by the aforesaid medical witnesses. Other medical documents i.e. Ex.PW-12/A, Ex.PW-12/B and Ex.PW-15/A of the aforesaid injured persons have also been duly proved on record by the aforesaid medical witnesses. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/versions/opinions of the aforesaid medical witnesses/concerned doctors. In the cross-
examination of aforesaid medical witnesses, no material contradiction/ inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out.
(vii) Testimonies of police witnesses In the present case, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-8, PW-11, PW-16, PW-17 and PW-18 are the police officials.
From the testimonies of the aforesaid police witnesses, it is evident that investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case during the course of investigation have been substantially proved by the aforesaid police witnesses.
PW-8 and PW-17 are the IOs in the present case, who deposed regarding investigation conducted by them and they Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:18:44 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.51/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil duly proved on record the documents relating to the investigation conducted by them.
15. CONTENTIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
(a) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that the accused had not caused any injury to the injured persons as he was not having any motive to cause the injury to the injured persons and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused. On the other hand, it was submitted by Substitute Addl. PP for the State that accused was having the motive to cause the injury to the injured persons as the accused was having evil eye upon the wife of the complainant.
For the purpose of any offence, motive, intention and knowledge are relevant factors.
The terms motive, intention and knowledge have been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Basdev Vs. The State of PEPSU" { AIR 1956 SC 488} Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:18:52 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.52/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil and it was held that :-
"..........of course, we have to distinguish between motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they cannote different things......."
PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that the accused had an evil eye on his wife. PW-7 in her testimony had deposed that the accused was having one side liking for her and he was having evil eye upon her and earlier, he had blackmailed her and got prepared her forged ID showing her as his wife.
In view of the above, it is clear that accused was having motive to cause the injury to the injured persons i.e. PW-1 and PW-6.
Even otherwise, it is well settled law that motive Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:19:03 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.53/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil looses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye- witness is available.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal & Ors." { (2008) 16 SCC 73 } that :-
"..........the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive looses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:19:12 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.54/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil motive but if the evidence of eye-witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction........."
In view of the law laid in Kishan Pal case (supra), it is held that the motive was not required to be proved by the prosecution as there is a direct evidence of the injured persons i.e. PW-1 and PW-6 and eye-witnesses i.e. PW-7, PW-9 & PW-10 in the present case. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(b) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil that in the present case, as per case of the prosecution, both injured persons had sustained simple injuries and in view of the same, ingredients of the offence u/s. 307 IPC are not attracted. It was further submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused. On the other hand, it was submitted by Substitute Addl. PP for the State that for the purpose of offence Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:19:21 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.55/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil u/s. 307 IPC, it is not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted.
Section 307 IPC has prescribed the punishment for attempt to murder. The essential ingredients for the offence under section 307 IPC are as under:-
(i) that the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused;
and
(iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as:
(a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or
(b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.
It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sivamani & Anr. Vs. State {Crl. Appeal No. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:19:30 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.56/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil 3619/2023 decided on 28/11/2023}" that to sustain a conviction u/s. 307 IPC, it is not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. It was also held that the grievous or life threatening injury is not necessary to maintain a conviction u/s. 307 IPC and the intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from the surrounding circumstances and the nature of weapon used and severity of blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.
On perusal of testimonies of injured persons i.e. PW-1 and PW-6 and eye-witnesses i.e. PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 and other prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had attacked upon the PW-1 and PW-6 with half part of scissor and iron rod and caused the injuries to PW-1 and PW-6 and they had sustained the injuries as mentioned/specified in the MLCs Ex.PW-13/A and Ex.PW-13/B. It is mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW-13/A that injured Inderjeet @ Sonu had CLW approx. (3 cm x 2 cm) size on left underarm area, 1 cm CLW on left arm, abrasion over stomach, abrasion over left Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:19:38 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.57/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil index finger and bruises over forehead. It is mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW-13/B that injured Thakur had CLW over left side of neck approx. 1-2 cm deep and CLW over left shoulder region.
PW-6 had sustained the injury upon vital part of his body i.e. neck. Nature of aforesaid injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-6 and nature of weapons of offence and mode and manner in which weapons of offence i.e., half part of scissor and iron rod used by the accused to cause the injuries to the injured persons shows that the accused was having intention and knowledge to commit the murder of the injured persons and the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the injured persons. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil in this regard is not tenable.
(c) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil that as per case of the prosecution, public persons had gathered at the spot but neither the said public persons were joined in the investigation of the present case by the IO nor cited/examined in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:19:45 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.58/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil the present case. It was also submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
It is well settled law that non-examination of any witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution and it depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of UP" {Criminal Appeal No.339-340/2014 decided on 04/02/2022} that:-
"A mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:19:53 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.59/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil been produced deliberately to prove it...."
It is well settled law that non-joining of public witnesses in the investigation is not fatal in every case. In the present case, PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 were joined in the investigation of the present case. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil in this regard is not tenable.
(d) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil that PW-6 is the brother, PW-7 is the wife and PW-9 is the mother of the complainant and they being the family members of the complainant had falsely deposed to falsely implicate the accused in the present case and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
It is well settled law that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:20:02 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.60/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil case titled as " Waman & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra"
{Criminal Appeal No. 364/2009 decided on 29/06/2011} that :-
"It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care."
In view of the specific testimonies of PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 and other concerned prosecution witnesses regarding commission of offence by the accused, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(e) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that in the present case, IO/PW-5 in his cross-examination had deposed that he thoroughly inspected the crime scene and no weapon of offence Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:20:09 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.61/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil was found by him. It was also submitted that as per case of the prosecution, accused has come to the house of the complainant with half part of scissor, iron rod and bag but the entire case of the prosecution is silent in respect of aforesaid bag. It was also submitted that recovery of case properties of the present case are doubtful. It was also submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
It is pertinent to mention here that PW-5 is not the IO of the present case and he was the In-charge, Crime Team, who prepared the scene of crime visit report Ex.PW-5/A. PW-17, who is the IO in the present case in his testimony had deposed that PW-7 had handed over the weapons of offence i.e. iron pipe and half part of scissor and he had seized the same.
Non-production of aforesaid bag of the accused is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as injured persons, eye- witnesses and other prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution.
In the present case, during the course of examination of concerned prosecution witnesses, case properties Ex.P-1 to Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.03.26 17:20:18 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.62/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil Ex.P-4 were produced in the Court and same were duly identified by the concerned witnesses. Seizure memos of the aforesaid case properties have been duly proved on record by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to show that recovery of case properties was doubtful.
In view of the specific testimonies of PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 and other concerned prosecution witnesses regarding commission of offence by the accused and recovery of aforesaid case properties and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(f) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that in the present case, original MLCs of injured persons i.e. PW-1 & PW-6 have not been placed on record by the prosecution and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
It is well settled law that objection regarding mode of proof of document must be taken when the document is Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:20:26 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.63/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil tendered and marked as an exhibit.
Objections regarding mode of proof of MLCs of PW-1 and PW-6 have not been taken by the accused at the time of exhibiting the MLCs Ex.PW-13/A and Ex.PW-13/B. In view of the same, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(g) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that in the present case, case properties have not been sent to the FSL to verify as to whose blood was present on the case properties and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
In the present case, case properties i.e. Ex.P-1 to P-4 have been duly proved on record by the prosecution. During the course of examination of PW-17, it was submitted by the accused that he is not disputing the identity of case properties Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3.
It is the prerogative of the IO to conduct the investigation of the case as per his wisdom according to the facts Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:20:33 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.64/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil and circumstances of the case. Investigation of any case cannot be conducted according to the choice of the accused. Even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution. In view of the specific testimonies of PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 and other concerned prosecution witnesses regarding commission of offence by the accused and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(h) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that in the present case, no medical opinion regarding the injury caused by the alleged weapons of offence has been obtained from the concerned doctor and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
In the present case, weapons of offence i.e. Ex.P-1 & P-2 were produced and duly proved on record by the prosecution. During the course of examination of PW-17, it was submitted by the accused that he is not disputing the identity of Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:20:40 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.65/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil and Ex.P-3.
It is the prerogative of the IO to conduct the investigation of the case as per his wisdom according to the facts and circumstances of the case. Investigation of any case cannot be conducted according to the choice of the accused. Even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution. In view of the specific testimonies of PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 and other concerned prosecution witnesses regarding commission of offence by the accused and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(i) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that as per case of the prosecution, the accused was beaten by the public persons and MLC No. 56177 of the accused was got prepared. It was further submitted that in the present case, MLC of the accused neither filed nor proved on record by the prosecution and in view of the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:20:48 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.66/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
Non-production of MLC of the accused is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, the accused had not called/summoned his aforesaid MLC from the hospital in his defence evidence. In view of the same, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(j) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that in the present case, site plan of the place of incident had not been prepared properly and only rough sketch of the site plan had been prepared and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
In the present case, the prosecution has duly proved on record the site plan of the spot Ex.PW-7/A. There is nothing on the record to show that site plan Ex.PW-7/A is not proper. In view of the same, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(k) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that in the present case, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:20:54 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.67/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil injuries sustained by both injured persons i.e. PW-1 & PW-6 are self inflicted injuries and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
There is nothing in the medical documents of injured persons as well as testimonies of medical/prosecution witnesses to show that the injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-6 were self inflicted injuries. In view of the same, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(l) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that in the present case, some prosecution witnesses had deposed that PW-10 had also sustained the injury and he was got admitted in the hospital and said fact is contrary to the case of the prosecution and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
On perusal of charge-sheet, it is clear that it is not the case of the prosecution that PW-10 had sustained the injury in the incident. PW-10 in his testimony nowhere deposed that he had sustained the injury in the incident. In view of the same, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable. Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.03.26 17:21:03 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.68/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
(m) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the accused that IOs had not investigated the present matter properly and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused. On the other hand, it was submitted by Substitute Addl. PP for the State that IOs had properly investigated the present matter.
There is nothing on the record to show that IOs had not investigated the present matter properly and investigation was defective.
Even otherwise, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)" (AIR 2000 SC 718) that :-
.....Dealing with a case of negligence on the part of the investigating officer, this Court in Karnel Singh v. State of MP {(1995) 5 SCC 518} observed that in a case of defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to be falling in the hands of erring investigating officer..."
Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil in this regard is not tenable.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26
17:21:11
+0530
FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.69/75
State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
(n) During the course of final arguments, it was
submitted by counsel for the accused that there are material contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and in view of the same, benefit of doubt to be given to the accused. On the other hand, during the course of final arguments, it was submitted by Substitute Addl. PP for the State that there is no material contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra" { (2010) 13 SCC 657} that:-
"While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:21:19 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.70/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons."
In the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, no material contradiction and inconsistency has been surfaced except some minor ones which are but natural. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil in this regard is not tenable.
16. In the present case, mode & manner of offence, nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons i.e. PW-1 & PW-6, weapons of offence, motive, intention and knowledge are relevant factors. The aforesaid factors have been duly proved on record by the prosecution.
In the present case, PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 in their testimonies have specifically deposed regarding the mode and manner in which the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had committed the offence. Testimonies of injured persons Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:21:26 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.71/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil i.e. PW-1 and PW-6 are corroborated with the testimonies of eye- witnesses i.e. PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10, medical witnesses, police witnesses as well as documentary and medical evidence and case properties relied upon by the prosecution.
17. In the present case, PW-2 and PW-12 were not cross-examined by the accused/counsel. Testimonies of PW-2 and PW-12 have gone un-rebutted, un-challenged and un- controverted.
In the present case, no defence evidence had been led by the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil in support of his defence and to rebut and contradict the case of the prosecution.
18. All the essential ingredients of the offence u/s. 307/324/452 IPC have been duly proved on record from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, documentary and other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
The prosecution has also been able to prove the fact that on 24/02/2016 at about 9:15 PM at H. No. 317, Gali No.2, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:21:33 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.72/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil Than Singh Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Parbat, accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had committed the house trespass into the house of the complainant Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and his family members and accused had caused injuries as mentioned in the MLC to the complainant Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty with half part of scissor and iron rod. Prosecution has also been able to prove the fact that at the aforesaid, time, date and place, the accused had also caused the injuries as mentioned in the MLC to Suraj @ Thakur with half part of scissor and iron rod with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that injury would have died, he would have been guilty of murder.
19. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the case laws relied upon by counsel for the accused, however, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26
17:21:40
+0530
FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.73/75
State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil
20. CONCLUSION
Applying priori and posteriori reasonings, this Court is held that on 24/02/2016 at about 9:15 PM at H. No. 317, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Parbat, accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil had committed the house trespass into the house of the complainant Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and his family members and accused had caused injuries as mentioned in the MLC to the complainant Inderjeet @ Sonu @ Jonty with half part of scissor and iron rod. It is also held that at the aforesaid time, date and place, the accused had also caused the injuries as mentioned in the MLC to Suraj @ Thakur with half part of scissor and iron rod with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that injury would have died, he would have been guilty of murder.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful to prove its case against the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.03.26 17:21:46 +0530 FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.74/75 State V. Govind Saini @ Nikhil 307/324/452 IPC. This Court is held that the accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil has committed the offence punishable under section 307/324/452 IPC. Accordingly, accused Govind Saini @ Nikhil is convicted for the offence under section 307/324/452 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
Announced in the open Court 2025.03.26 17:21:52 on 26/03/2025 +0530 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 141/2016 PS Anand Parbat Page No.75/75