Delhi District Court
State vs Parmod Buddha Etc on 28 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
Parmod @ Buddha & ANR. FIR No.92/17
Police Station: Punjabi Bagh
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No.381/17
2. CNR no. DLWT010057812017
3. Date of Institution 23.05.2017
4. Date of Commission of 23-24.02.2016 offence
5. Name of the accused 1. Parmod @ Buddha S/o Sukh Lal R/o Jhuggi no.36, DDU Camp, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
2. Sumit @ Langda S/o Late Sh. Gauri Shankar R/o Jhuggi no.119, DDU Camp, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 411 IPC Section 307/34 IPC Section 174A IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 18.04.2026 POOJA judgment TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 1 of 45 16:04:04 +0530 FIR no.92/17
9. Final order Accused Parmod @ Buddha and Sumit @ Langda are convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.
Accused Parmod @ Buddha is convicted under Section 411 IPC.
Accused Sumit @ Langda is also convicted under Section 174A IPC.
10 Date of such judgment 28.04.2026 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that complainant Hari Mandal filed a complaint on 24.07.2017 stating that on 23.07.2017 at about 9 pm when he was standing outside his house he saw his brother-in-law (saala) Raju alongwith his friends Parmod @ Buddha and Sumit @ Langda. He was informed by Raju that he was going with them for having food. The next morning at about 7:00 AM, his son Nitesh @ Jitesh informed him that in the night at about 11:00 PM when he went out to ease himself, he saw Parmod @ Buddha and Sumit @ Langda giving beatings to someone. Complainant started searching his brother-in-law. Then he was informed by some neighbour that his brother-in-law laid naked near the drain in injured condition. He took him to the hospital and present case was filed against the accused persons.
2. On the basis of complaint, FIR under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons. On 24.07.2017 POOJA TALWAR accused Parmod @ Buddha was arrested. At his instance his Digitally signed clothes and one mobile phone make LYF of victim was by POOJA TALWAR recovered. Accused Sumit @ Langda was also arrested. Date: 2026.04.28 16:04:10 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 2 of 45 FIR no.92/17
3.Charge
(i) Charge was framed against accused Parmod @ Buddha under Section 411 IPC and 307/34 IPC.
(ii) Charge was framed against accused Sumit @ Langda Section 307/34 IPC & 174A IPC.
4. Since the accused Sumit @ Langda absented himself proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were executed against him and he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 18.09.2023. He was again arrested on 26.03.2024.
Prosecution evidence
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined eighteen witnesses as under :-
Material Witnesses:
(i) PW1: Hari Mandal deposed in his testimony that:
On 23.02.2017, at about 07.30 pm, I returned at my house at my house i.e. Jhuggi NO.291 from my working place. At about 09.00 pm, 1 saw that my brother in law (Sala) Raju was going outside of his jhuggi no.290. At that time. Raju was alongwith his friends i.e. the accused Parmod and Langda, who are present in the court today. I asked from Raju as to where he was going. On which, he replied that "main kahin doston ke saath ja raha hoon khane peene". (I was going somewhere for drink session with my friends). I advised Raju that told the said fact to your mother before going somewhere. Thereafter. I went POOJA inside my jhuggi for sleeping. TALWAR On the next day i.e. on 24.02.2017 at about 07/07.30 am, I Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 3 of 45 Date: 2026.04.28 FIR no.92/17 16:04:16 +0530 went towards nearby Nala for attending the natural call. There, I saw the bicycle of my brother in law Raju. Therefore. I went to the jhuggi of my mother in law and asked from my mother in law Smt. Bechni Devi as to whether Raju did not go for his duty. I also told to my mother in law that I saw the bicycle of Raju near Nala and therefore, I was apprehension that he did not go for his job. I also asked from my mother in law as to whether on previous night, Raju took her permission to go outside with his friends for party as was advised by me to him. On which, my mother in law told me that Raju did not take her permission and she was not having any knowledge about Raju. My mother in law requested me for searching Raju. I started searching for Raju. In the meanwhile, I saw that some local residents were coming towards their jhuggi from Nala and out of those residents, one resident namely Amit told me that he saw the body of Raju near Nala and that his half of the body was under the water. He also told me that the body of Raju was nude. Therefore, I immediately at first rushed to my jhuggi to take some clothes for covering the body of Raju and thereafter. I immediately rushed towards Nala. At cannal/Nala, I saw the body of Raju. I also that blood was oozing out fron: his hand and there was slit mark on his neck. I also observed other injury marks on his body. I checked Raju and found that he was breathing. Therefore, I with the help of local residents immediately dragged out Raju from Nala and took him to Guru Gobind Singh Hospital in battery rikshaw. In the hospital. Raju was admitted. The police official who was on duty in hospital, made the telephone call at 100 number. At the time of admitting Raju in hospital, he was alive. The condition of Raju was so POOJA TALWAR serious that he was referred to Deen Dayal Hospital from GGS Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 4 of 45 TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:04:22 +0530 Hospital. When we were shifting Raju from Guru Gobind Singh hospital in an ambulance, the local police officials reached there. The police officials tried to take the statement of Raju. However, he was unable to speak and therefore, his statement could not be recorded. Raju was taken to DDU Hospital and at that time, my elder brother in law (sala) Sh. Sanjay and Sh. Gauri Shankar (chacha), accompanied Raju to hospital.
The local police officials asked from me about the place from where. I lifted Raju and therefore, I took them to the canal/Nala. From there, the concerned police official lifted the earth control and blood stained earth control. broken pieces of glass and stones vide memos Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/E respectively which bears my signature at point A. At canal. my son Nitish @ Jitesh also reached and he stated to me before the police that at the night of 23.02.2017 at about 11.00 pm. when he got up for urinate, he saw that 3-4 persons were beating a person in the nearby park. Nitish also told that out of the above mentioned 3-4 persons, one was crippled with walking and that due to darkness, he could not see properly the victim who was being beaten up by the accused persons. I narrated the incident to police and in this regard, my statement was recorded vide my statement/complaint Ex.PWI/A which bears my signature at point A. Thereafter. I and my son Nitish @ Jitesh led the police officials to the house of accused Langda. From there, the accused Langda was apprehended. At that time, accused Langda was in drunken condition. From the house of accused Langda, we went to the house of accused Parmod @ Budhha. From there, accused Parmod, who was in drunken condition, was apprehended. Both POOJA the accused persons were taken to PS. Istated to police that Raju TALWAR was having the mobile phone. However, at the time when he was Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 5 of 45 TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:04:29 +0530 lifted from canal, there was no mobile phone and therefore, search should be made to recover the mobile phone. On my request, the police officials made efforts to recover the mobile phone and both the accused persons were asked about the mobile phone. On interrogation, accused Parmod disclosed that he had concealed the mobile phone of Raju in his house and therefore, he led the police to his house. From there, the accused Parmod got recovered the mobile phone and handed over the same to police. A pullanda of the said recovered mobile phone was prepared and same was sealed. A document in this regard was also prepared by the police and my signature was obtained on the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F which bears my signature at point A. From the house of accused Parmod, I alongwith police officials went to DDU Hospital. On that day also, the police officials tried to take the statement of Raju. However, he was still unfit for giving the statement.
At the time of taking into possession the above mentioned pieces of glass, stones etc., the sleepers of Raju were also taken into possession from nearby bushes vide seizure memo in this regard Ex.PW1/G which bears my signature at point A. At the time of interrogating the accused persons, their statements were recorded vide disclosure statements Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PWI/I respectively which bears my signature at point A. The accused were arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/J to Ex.PW1/J3 respectively which bears my signature at point A. I do not know whether the accused persons led the police team to the place of occurrence or not. I do not remember if apart from mobile phone, any other article was got recovered POOJA by the accused persons. TALWAR (At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for the State seeks permission Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 6 of 45 Date: 2026.04.28 16:04:35 +0530 FIR no.92/17 to put a leading question).
Heard. Allowed.
Is it correct that both the accused persons gave their respective clothes, which were worn by them on the day of incident, to police?
A: Yes. In this regard, the documents were prepared and my signature was obtained on the same vide memos Ex. PW 1/K and Ex.PW I/L respectively which bears my signature at point A. Q: Is it correct that both the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence?
A: Yes. A document in this regard was prepared vide document Ex.PW 1/M which bears my signature at point A. I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this stage, MHC(M) produced two pullanda in sealed condition with the seal of BS and same are opened. One of the pullanda is found containing a mobile phone make LYF and the other pullanda is found containing sleepers. Same are shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same. The mobile phone is exhibits as Ex.Pl and the sleepers are exhibited as Ex.P2 (colly.) I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced parcel no. A in sealed condition with the seal of FSL and same is opened. Parcel no. A is found containing blood stained stone which is shown to the witness who correctly identified the same. The blood stained stone is exhibited as Ex.P3.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. B in sealed condition with the seal of FSL and same is opened. Parcel no. B is found containing one stone/earth control which is shown to the witness POOJA TALWAR who correctly identified the same. Same is exhibited as Ex.P4.
Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 7 of 45 TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:04:40 +0530
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. C in sealed condition with the seal of FSL and same is opened. Parcel no. C is found containing a plastic jar which is containing a blood stained piece of glass which is shown to the witness who correctly identified it. The blood stained piece of glass is exhibited as Ex.P5.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. D in sealed condition with the seal of FSL and same is opened. Parcel no. D is found containing blood stained stone which is shown to the witness who correctly identified it. Same is exhibited as Ex.P6.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no.E in sealed condition with the seal of FSL and same is opened. Parcel no. E is found containing blood stained clothes of accused Sumit @ Langra which are shown to the witness who correctly identified the same. Same are exhibited as Ex.P7 (colly.).
MHC(M) also produced parcel no. F in sealed condition with the seal of FSL and same is opened. Parcel no. F is found containing blood stained clothes of accused Pramod @ Budha which are shown to the witness who correctly identified the same. Same are exhibited as Ex.P8 (colly.).
(ii) PW3: Raju, victim/injured deposed that:
"On 23.02.2017, at about 08/08.30 pm, I returned at my jhuggi from my working place. I had to go to market and therefore, I started proceeding towards market from my jhuggi. On the way, the accused Pramod, who is present in the court today (correctly identified) met me. The accused Pramod asked from me "daaru pila raha hai". In the meanwhile, the accused Sumit @ Langra, who is present in the court today (correctly identified), reached there. On the way, I also met with Sh. Hari POOJA TALWAR Mandal, my Jeeja (brother in law). He asked from me as to Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 8 of 45 TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:04:47 +0530 where I was going alongwith the accused persons. On which I replied that I was going alongwith accused persons to take food etc. On reaching at Market, the accused Pramod purchased half liquor bottle from Sharab Theka. Some snacks were also purchased for drink session. Thereafter, we all went towards public urinal to have drink session. We all started consuming liquor. I was under the influence of liquor. During drink session, the accused Pramod started abusing me. On which, I asked from him as to why he was abusing though I always spent money upon him and accused Sumit for drink sessions. I threw the vegetables (Sabzi) upon accused Pramod. Accused Pramod again started abusing me. Thereafter, I caught hold to collars of the shirt of both the accused persons and said "Tum dono ki mili bhagat hai, main hi paisa kharch karta hoon aur tum mere upar hi hukum chalate ho". The accused persons got released themselves from my clutches. The accused Pramod asked accused Sumit @ Langra "Ye bahut paise wala banta hai aaj isko sabak sikhate hain". Thereafter, both the accused persons lifted stones from there and hit the same on the back of my head. Thereafter, I do not remember as to what happened as I lost my consciousness.
Later on, I regained consciousness and found myself in the hospital in nude condition. I also came to know through someone that after gave beatings to me, the accused persons throw away me near Nala.
The police officials also visited the hospital. However, my condition was serious and therefore, I could not give any statement.
Later on, I was discharged from hospital and went to my POOJA TALWAR jhuggi. At Jhuggi, some police officials came and they asked Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 9 of 45 TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:04:55 +0530 from me about the incident which was narrated by me. In this regard, my statement was recorded. I can identify the case property if shown to me.
(At this stage, MHC(M) produced a polythene which is found containing a pullanda in sealed condition with the seal of court and same is opened. The pullanda is found containing a pair of chappal. Same are shown to the witness who correctly identified it. Chappal/sleepers have already been exhibited as Ex.P2(colly.) MHC(M) also produced an another pullanda in sealed condition with the seal of court and same is opened. The pullanda is found containing a mobile phone make LYF and same is shown to the witness who correctly identified it. The mobile phone has already been exhibited as Ex.PI.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no.A in sealed condition with the seal of court and same is opened. The parcel is found containing blood stained stone and same is shown to the witness who correctly identified it as was the stone with which the injury was inflicted. The stone has already been exhibited as Ex.P3.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no.D in sealed condition with the seal of court and same is opened. The parcel is found containing blood stained stone and same is shown to the witness who correctly identified it as was the stone with which the injury was inflicted. The stone has already been exhibited as Ex.P6.
MHC(M) also produced parcel no.C in sealed condition with the seal of court and same is opened. The parcel is found containing plastic jar which is containing blood stained piece of glass and same is shown to the witness who correctly identified POOJA it. The piece of glass has already been exhibited as Ex.P5. TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 10 of 45 Date: 2026.04.28 16:05:05 +0530 FIR no.92/17
(iii) PW6: Nitesh @ Jitesh deposed that:
"I am studying in the 9th Class. On 23.02.2017, at about 11.00 pm, I went outside of my house to urinate and then I saw that the accused Parmod and Sumit, who are present in the court today (correctly identified) were beating a person while made him lying on the ground. I could not see the face of the victim. I did not intervene as I got scared and went back to my jhuggi. I told about the occurrence to my father in the morning at about 07.00 am.
I was told by my father that Mama Raju had not come back to home since night. He was residing with my Nani in adjacent jhuggi.
My father was told by Rajesh who is also one of my Mama by distant relation that Raju is lying in the bushes. My father and other persons picked Raju and took him to the hospital.
My father had seen Raju leaving with the accused persons, on the previous night as I was told by my father (Objected to hearsay).
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW2: Sanjay deposed that Raju was his brother. Raju was not having his any identity proof and therefore, he got issued the sim of Jio company on the basis of his identity proof.
(ii) PW4: Ms. Shweta Suri deposed that Raju was employed by her at her house. She and her son were working therefore to looked after the house. She also gave Raju a mobile phone make Reliance. She did not give her ID proof to Raju for getting the POOJA TALWAR phone number and advised him to take the ID of his brother. She gave the bill Ex.P-7 for purchase of abovesaid mobile phone to Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 11 of 45 16:05:13 +0530 FIR no.92/17 the police officials.
Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW5: Inspector Ram Pal deposed that on 24.02.2017 he was the Incharge of Moble Crime Team. On that day at around 12:00 noon a call was received from control room regarding the incident. On receiving the information he alongwith ASI Ajeet Singh, Photographer, ASI Lalit Proficient, ASI Dalip Singh Asst.
Proficient went to the spot by govt. vehicle which was driven by Ct. Vijender Singh. At the spot they met IO and other police staff. They found there the blood stained stone nearby the sewage waste cemented pipe. On his instructions ASI Ajeet Singh took photographs of the spot from different angles. He also inspected the spot and prepared report Ex.PW5/A bearing his signatures at point A. He handed over the exhibits to the IO alongwith his report.
(ii) PW7: Retd. SI Ajeet Singh deposed that on 24.02.2017 he alongwith other staff reached the spot i.e. Jungles of Paschim Puri, Madipur. When they reached there IO ASI Baljor Singh met them. Injured had already gone to the hospital. They alongwith IO went inside the jungle and there was one drain. One blood stained stone was lying outside the drain near cemented pipe. He took photographs of the spot from different angles from his official camera. He handed over the 8 photographs Ex.PW7/A to the IO. He produced negatives of the same as Ex.PW7/B.
(iii) PW8: HC Surender produced the original register no.19 and POOJA 21 of PS Punjabi Bagh of the year 2017. As per the said register TALWAR at Sr. no.3035 dt. 24.02.2017 and 3157 dt.21.03.2017, the case Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 12 of 45 Date: 2026.04.28 FIR no.92/17 16:05:23 +0530 property relating to the present case FIR was deposited in the malkhana by ASI Baljor Singh. As per the said register, the case property in the present case was sent to FSL on 07.04.2017 by Ct. Jai deep Singh vide RC no.61/21/17. On 13.03.2018, the FSL result in the present case was received from FSL. He submitted copy of above-said entry of register no.19 according to the original produced by him and the same is Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and also submitted the copy of RC Ex.PW8/C. He also submitted copy of acknowledgment of FSL Ex.PW8/D.
(iv) PW9: Ct. Jaideep deposed that on 07.04.2017 under instructions of IO he collected the exhibits from MHCM vide RC no.61/21/17 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. He went to FSL Rohini and deposited the same there and collected the acknowledgment and handed it over to MHC(M). As long as the exhibits remained in his possession, it remained intact and not tempered by anyone. The copy of RC Mark X1 and copy of acknowledgment Mark X2 bearing his signature at Point A.
(v) PW10: HC Siya Ram deposed that on 24.02.2017 he was on emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm with ASI Baljor. At about 9.15 am, ASI Baljor received a telephone call of DO police post Madipur PS Punjabi Bagh vide DD no.13 PP regarding admission of injured at Guru Gobind Singh hospital. They reached at said hospital where one patient namely Raju was found admitted and he was unconscious. Brother-in-law (jija) of Raju namely Hari Mandal met them in the hospital. He told ASI Baljor about the incident and ASI Baljor recorded his statement. ASI Baljor prepared rukka and handed over it to him and he got POOJA TALWAR the FIR registered. Thereafter, he came to spot after registration Digitally signed SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 13 of 45 by POOJA TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:05:32 +0530 of FIR i.e. jhuggi of DDU camp park at nala Punjabi bagh, delhi where ASI Baljor met him. Crime team officials were present there and he handed over copy of FIR to ASI Baljor. Crime team inspected the spot. Blood was lying at the spot. ASI Baljor took into possession the blood stained earth and earth control and sealed the same with seal of BS vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at Point B. Complainant Hari Mandal was also present at the spot. He along with ASI Baljor and complainant Hari Mandal searched for accused Parmod @ Buddha and Sumit @ Langda and both accused were over-powered at the instance of complainant from jhuggi of Rajiv Gandhi camp, Punjabi Bagh. Parmod handed over the mobile phone of LYF in blue colour of injured Raju after taking out the same from the pocket of his pant and ASI Baljor sealed with BS and took the same into police possession vide PW1/F bearing his signatures at Point B. Thereafter, both accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/J1 bearing his signatures at Point B and their personal search was conduced vide Ex.PW1/J2 and Ex.PW1/J3 and their disclosure statement Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/H was recorded which bearing his signatures at Point B. Both the accused persons pointed the place of incident and pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at their instance as Ex.PW1/M bearing his signature at Point B. Both the accused persons also got recovered the blood stained broken glass bottle from the bushes near Paschim Puri Nala, DDU camp park and told that by the said bottle they caused injuries to Raju. ASI seized the same and sealed with BS and took same into police possession Ex.PW1/E bearing his POOJA signatures at Point B. Both the accused persons also got TALWAR recovered the sleepers of Raju from the same place and ASI Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 14 of 45 16:05:38 +0530 FIR no.92/17 seized the same and sealed with BS and took same into police possession Ex.PW1/G bearing his signatures at Pt. B. Both the accused persons also got recovered the piece of stone by which they caused injuries to Raju from the same place and ASI seized the same and sealed with BS and took same into police possession Ex.PW1/D bearing his signatures at Point B. Parmod took them to his Jhuggi no.36, DDU camp and handed over to ASI Baljor from his jhuggi his clothes i.e. one jeans pant and t- shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident and same was seized vide Ex.PW1/K bearing his signature at Pt. B and the said Sumit also took them to his jhuggi no.119, DDU camp and handed over to ASI Baljor from his jhuggi his clothes i.e. one jeans pant and one shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident and same was seized vide Ex.PW1/L bearing his signatures at Point B. Thereafter, both the said persons were medically examined at SGM hospital and were sent behind lockup. Accused Parmod was correctly identified by him in the court. He identified blood stained stone Ex.P6, glass bottle as Ex.P5, clothes of accused Parmod Ex.PR, clothes of accused Sumit Ex.P7 in the testimony of PW1 and Sleeper Ex.P2.
(vi) PW11: ASI Sunil Kumar deposed that on 24.02.2017, ASI Baljor Singh handed over eight exhibits sealed with the seal of BS. He deposited all the eight exhibits in malkhana and made entry to this effect in register no.19 vide entry No.3035. Photocopy of same is Ex.11/A. On 21.03.2017 ASI Baljor Singh handed over one exhibit i.e. blood in gauze sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He deposited the exhibit in POOJA TALWAR in malkhana and made an entry to this effect in register no.19 vide entry no.3157. Photocopy of same is Ex.11/B. On Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 15 of 45 16:05:43 +0530 FIR no.92/17 07.04.2017 on the direction of the IO/ASI Baljor Singh all the abovesaid exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Jaideep vide RC 61/21/17. After sometime, Ct. Jaideep returned to PS who gave an acknowledgment vide No.2017/Bio/2585. Photocopy of same is Ex.PW11/C. As per record, the FSI. report and case property were received in the malkhana on 13.03.2018 through HC Avdesh. Till the time case property remained in his possession, it was not tampered with in any manner.
(vii) PW12: Ct. Jai Deep deposed that on 07.04.2017 under instructions of IO ASI Baljor Singh collected from the malkhana exhibits of the present for depositing the same at FSL Rohini vide RC no.61/21/17 and deposited the same there. He collected the receipt of the same and returned to PS. He handed over the receipt to the MHCM. As long as the sealed parcel remained in his possession and was not tempered. Copy of RC is already Mark X-1 and copy of acknowledgment is already Mark X-2 bearing his signature at point A.
(viii) PW13: Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhla, Retd. Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi deposed that on 07.04.2017 seven sealed exhibits of the present case were received in the office of FSL Rohini from PS Punjabi Bagh. The said exhibits were marked to him for examination. Upon seeing the parcels, they were found to be sealed with the seal of BS and one another sealed parcel was found in parcel G containing seal of SGMH Mangolpuri. He examined the said exhibits. Blood was deducted on Ex.A, B, C, D, E2, F1, F2 and G. Upon analysis POOJA he found alleles from the source of Ex.E2 shirt of accused Sumit TALWAR @ Lagda was accounted in the alleles from the source of Ex.G Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 16 of 45 16:05:50 +0530 FIR no.92/17 Blood stained gauze cloth piece of the victim. His detailed report in this is Ex.PW13/A bearing his signatures on both pages at point A. The remnants were sealed back with the seal of SKS FSL DELHI. He also gave the serological report in which all the exhibits were found to be human in-origin whereas blood group was found to be A positive on Ex.G blood stained gauze cloth piece of the victim. The serological report is Ex.PW13/B bearing his signatures at point A.
(ix) PW14: Ct. Ankur deposed that on 26.03.2024 he alongwith Ct. Kulwant and Ct. Jaideep left for Dwarka Mor vide DD no.5. Over there we met one secret informer who informed me that one accused namely Sumit @ Lagda who was declared as proclaimed offender in case FIR No.92/17 PS Punjabi Bagh would be coming near DDU Camp Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, they alongwith secret informer went to DDU Camp Punjabi Bagh. Upon reaching there secret informer pointed out towards one house bearing no.119 DDU Camp Punjabi Bagh and stated that accused Sumit @ Lagda would be found in the said house. Thereafter secret informer left the spot. He went outside the said house and called the name of Sumit @ Lagda. One person came out of the said house and he revealed his name as Sumit @ Lagda, he informed him about him being declared Proclaimed Offender and arrested the said accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A bearing his signatures at point A. Ground of arrest Ex.PW14/B bearing his signatures at point A. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter accused was medically got POOJA examined and they went to PS Dwarka North. They got recorded TALWAR arrival entry vide entry no.100A Ex.PW14/D bearing his Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 17 of 45 Date:
FIR no.92/17 2026.04.28
16:05:56 +0530
signatures at point A. He prepared kalandra against the said Sumit @ Lagda and filed the same before the Honble Court. Kalandra is Ex.PW14/E bearing his signatures at point A. He correctly identified accused Sumit @ Lagda in the court.
(x) PW15: HC Kulwant deposed that on 26.03.2024 he joined the Ct. Ankur for arresting accused Sumit @ Langda.
(xi) PW16: SI Rohan Singh deposed that during the period of March 2024 he received information about arrest of accused Sumit @ Langda by PO and Bail Cell, Dwarka. He received the copy of kalandara vide DD no.100A and other documents pertaining to arrest of accused Sumit @ Langda. He also received the copy of order declaring the accused Sumit @ Langda proclaimed offender by the concerned court. He prepared the charge-sheet for offence u/s 174A IPC against accused Sumit @ Langda and filed the same before the Hon'ble Court.
(xii) PW17: Retd. SI Baljor Singh deposed that:
"On 24.02.2017 I was posted at PP Madhi Pur, PS Punjabi Bagh as ASI. On that day I was on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 PM and I was accompanied by Ct. Siya Ram. I was already attending another call, at that point of time I received a telephonic message from the then DD Writer PS Punjabi Bagh L/Ct. Savita that one patient was brought to GGS hospital from Nala near Shamshan Ghat near Jhuggies of Rajiv Gandhi Camp. The said fact was recorded vide DD no.13 PP which is already Ex.AD2. I alongwith Ct. Siya Ram reached at GGS Hospital. POOJA Upon reaching there I found that injured Raju Mandal was TALWAR admitted in the aforesaid hospital. I collected his MLC and I was Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 18 of 45 Date: 2026.04.28 FIR no.92/17 16:06:01 +0530 informed by the doctor that the said Raju Mandal was unconscious and was not in a state to give statement. At the aforesaid hospital I met Hari Mandal who was brother in law (Jija) of injured Raju Mandal. The said Hari Mandal narrated the facts of incident to me. I recorded the statement of Hari Mandal which is already Ex.PW1/A and the same was attested by me at point B. I prepared the tehrir, same is EX.PW17/A bearing my signature at point A. I handed over the tehrir to Ct. Siya Ram for registration of FIR. Ct. Siya Ram went to the PS and got the FIR registered and thereafter Ct. Siya Ram brought the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the spot and handed over the same to me. I informed the control room of West District and called the crime team to the spot. At about 12.00 mid night the crime team reached at the spot. The crime team inspected the spot and took the photographs of the spot from all angles. The crime team officials prepared their report and handed over the same to me.
The crime team report is already Ex.PW5/A. I seized one blood stained stone which was found lying at the spot. The seizure memo of the same is already Ex.PW1/B bearing my signature at point C. The pullinda of the same was prepared and same was sealed with the seal of BS. I alongwith Hari Mandal went in search of accused persons of the present case. Hari Mandal was aware about the accused persons. Hari Mandal took us to Jhuggies near the Nala. Over there we found two persons present over there. Hari Mandal identified those persons as Parmod Budha and Sumit @ Lagda, the two accused persons of the present case. I arrested both the two accused persons at the POOJA pointing out of Hari Mandal. TALWAR Arrest memo of accused Parmod @ Budha is already Digitally signed EX.PW1/J bearing my signature at point C. Arrest memo of by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:06:07 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 19 of 45 FIR no.92/17 accused Sumit @ Langda is already EX.PW1/J1 bearing my signature at point C. Personal search of both the acucsed persons was conducted. Personal search memo of accused Parmod @ Budha is already Ex.PW1/J2 bearing my signature at point C. Personal search memo of accused Sumit @ Langda is already Ex.PW1/J3 bearing my signature at point C. Disclosure statement of both accused persons was recorded. The disclosure statement of accused Sumit @ Langda is already Ex.PW1/H bearing my signature at point C. Disclosure statement of accused Parmod @ Budha is already Ex.PW1/I bearing my signature at point C. Thereafter, the accused persons were taken to place of occurrence of offence and a pointing out memo was got prepared. The pointing out memo is already Ex.PW1/M bearing my signature at point C. Thereafter, accused Parmod @ Budha handed over to me one mobile phone make LYF which was stated by accused to be belonging to the injured of the present case namely Raju Mandal. The said mobile phone was seized by preparing seizure memo which is already EX.PW1/F bearing my signature at point C. Pullinda of the same was prepared and the same was sealed with the seal of BS. Thereafter, accused Parmod @ Budha took us to his Jhuggie. The accused took us inside the jhuggie and from there from the wall where his clothes were hanging, accused got recovered one blue colour jeans and black colour t-shirt and the same were also blood stained. The said clothes were seized by preparing seizure memo. The seizure memo of the same is already Ex.PW1/K bearing my signature at point C. The pullinda of the same was prepared and the same was sealed with the seal of BS. Thereafter accused Sumit @ Langda POOJA TALWAR took us to his jhuggie in DDU camp, Jhuggie of accused Parmod Digitally signed and Sumit were nearby only. Accused Sumit also got recovered by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 20 of 45 16:06:13 +0530 FIR no.92/17 one jeans and black colour shirt. The same were also having blood stains. The said clothes were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/L bearing my signature at point C. Thereafter pullinda of the same was prepared and the same was sealed with the seal of BS.
Thereafter both the accused persons got recovered black slippers worn by the accused persons on the day of the incident from the bushes near by the jhuggies of accused persons. The said slippers were seized by preparing seizure memo which is already Ex.PW1/G bearing my signature at point C. Words "Hot Look" were written on the said slippers. Pullinda of the same was prepared and was sealed with the seal of BS. From the bushes nearby the aforementioned bushes accused persons got recovered blood stained broken glass bottle. The same was seized by preparing seizure memo which is already Ex.PW1/E bearing my signature at point C. Pullinda of the same was prepared and same was sealed with the seal of BS.
Thereafter, from the nearby bushes we also seized blood stained stone. The same was seized by preparing seizure memo already ExPW1/D bearing my signature at point C. Pullinda of the same was prepared and same was sealed with the seal of BS. Thereafter, we returned back to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana. I recorded the statement of witnesses as stated by them to me.
Thereafter, I got to know the injured Raju Mandal was discharged from the hospital. I went to the house of Raju Mandal on 24.02.2017 and recorded his statement u/s 161 CrP.C at his POOJA house as stated by him to me. TALWAR On 21.03.2017 I got the blood sample of injured Raju Digitally signed Mandal from SGM Hospital. The same was seized vide seizure by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 21 of 45 16:06:19 +0530 FIR no.92/17 memo Ex.PW17/C bearing my signature at point A. I deposited the said sample in the malkhana of the PS alongwith the sample seal. Thereafter, I got the said sealed exhibits to FSL for examination vide RC no.61/21/17 dated 07.04.2017 already Mark X. Accused persons were produced before the Hon'ble Court and remanded to JC. I collected the documents like MLC. I prepared the chargesheet against the accused persons and filed the same before the Hon'ble Court.
After receiving the FSL result I also prepared the supplementary chargesheet and filed the same in the Hon'ble Court. The FSL result is already Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B. Both the accused persons are present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness. I can identify the case property if shown to me. Perusal of judicial record reflects that case property i.e. mobile phone make LYF is already Ex.P1, slippers already Ex.P2 (colly), blood stained stone already Ex.P3, earth control stone Ex.P4, blood stained piece of glass Ex.P5, Blood stained stone piece Ex.P6, Blood stained clothes of accused Sumit already Ex.P7 (colly), blood stained clothes of accused Parmod already Ex.P8 (colly). Same is not objected to by the Deputy LADC for accused persons.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for the state seek permission to ask one leading question from the witness. Heard. Allowed. Q. Did you seize earth control stone on 24.02.2017 already Ex.PW1/C?
Ans. Yes and the memo bears my signature at point C. Q. Did you prepare the site plan?
POOJA
Ans. Yes. The recovery site plan is Ex.PW17/D bearing my TALWAR
signature at point A and site plan of spot is Ex.PW17/E bearing Digitally signed
by POOJA
my signature at point A." TALWAR
Date:
2026.04.28
16:06:26 +0530
SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 22 of 45
FIR no.92/17
6. Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 CrP.C.
(i) Accused Parmod @ Buddha stated that it is a false case. He is innocent and falsely implicated by police officials. On the day of incident he met with the complainant but have not committed any offence nor caused any injury to him.
(ii) Accused Sumit @ Langda stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated by police officials. He met the complainant on the day of incident for a very short span and thereafter, he left his the company. He did not know who had caused injuries to the complainant. He had not caused any injury to the complainant. The police officials falsely implicated him in order to solve the case.
7. Statement under Section 294 CrPC:
(i). Ld. counsel for both the accused persons also admitted the MLC of victim Raju under Section 294 CrPC.
(ii) In Statement under Section 294 CrPC Accused Parmod @ Buddha admitted the following documents and witnesses thereof were dispensed with.
1. FIR by Duty Officer.
2. DD no.13PP.
(iii) In Statement under Section 294 CrPC Accused Sumit @ Langda admitted the following documents and witnesses thereof were dispensed with.
POOJA
1. Copy of FIR no.92/17 already Ex.AD1 (colly). TALWAR
2. Certificate u/s 65 B IEA already Ex.AD1 (colly).
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWARSC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 23 of 45 Date:
FIR no.92/17 2026.04.28
16:06:32 +0530
4. DD no.13PP dated 24.02.2017 already Ex.AD2.
Arguments on behalf of the State
8. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the testimony of victim is corroborated with the testimony of his brother-in-law PW1 who is the complainant alongwith PW6 Nitesh. Their testimony is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Testimony of all these witnesses when read together proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Recovery of mobile of the victim from accused Parmod @ Buddha is proved through the testimony of PW2 brother of the victim and PW4 Shweta who was his employer. FSL report is positive against accused Sumit @ Langda which further connects accused persons with the offence. Accused persons deserve to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
9. Ld. counsel for accused, per contra argued that there are discrepancies in the statement of witnesses which raise suspicion in the story of prosecution. Accused persons have been falsely implicated by PW1 brother-in-law of the victim as he had seen the accused persons in company the victim. There is no cogent evidence on record against the accused persons. They deserve to be acquitted.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents POOJA relied upon by the prosecution carefully. TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 24 of 45 16:06:39 +0530 FIR no.92/17 Analysis of Law:
11. The essential ingredients to prove offence under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) are (1) an act done with intention or knowledge to cause death and (2) this act must be performed under such circumstances that if it resulted in death, it would constitute murder.
12. The prosecution must prove the mens rea (guilty mind) and the actus reus (guilty act). Proof of injury is not mandatory, but the act itself must be of a nature that shows the intention or knowledge to cause death.
13. Now in order to prove Intention or Knowledge to cause death, prosecution must prove that the Act must be performed with the specific intent to cause death, or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.
14. In the five prime point to complete the offence are enumerated below:
1. The Act: The accused must have performed an act that shows a clear intention or knowledge to commit murder.
2. Circumstances: The circumstances surrounding the act must be such that if the act had resulted in death, it would have been considered murder.
3. Risk of Death: The act must be so dangerous and imminently threatening that it carries a high probability of causing death or severe bodily injury, and the accused has no excuse for incurring this risk.
POOJA Important Considerations- Proof of Injury is Not Required: TALWAR Unlike murder, causing an actual injury is not a necessary Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 25 of 45 Date:
FIR no.92/17 2026.04.28
16:06:47 +0530
element to prove an attempt to murder under Section 307. The focus is on the act and the intention or knowledge behind it.
4. Failed Attempt: A Section 307 offense is, by definition, a failed attempt to commit murder, where the death is not ultimately caused.
5. Severity of the Act: The severity of the offense is determined by the potential risk involved and the circumstances, not merely the eventual outcome.
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
15. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This POOJA section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a TALWAR substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfill the Digitally signed requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there 16:06:56 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 26 of 45 FIR no.92/17 must be a prior concert or a pre- arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
16. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuance to that plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of act in point of time which need not be a long gap.
Section 174A IPC-Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.-- Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Observation of the Court:
17. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on the complaint Ex.PW1/A of PW1 Hari Mandal who alleged that on 23.02.2017 he saw the injured in company of the accused persons. His son Nitesh PW4 informed him in the morning that he saw both the accused persons beating someone when he went out to ease himself. Upon this the complainant started searching his brother-in-law. Then he was informed by some neighbour that POOJA his brother-in-law laid naked near the drain in injured condition. TALWAR He took him to the hospital and present case was filed against the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 27 of 45 Date:
FIR no.92/17 2026.04.28
16:07:06 +0530
accused persons.
18. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, accused Parmod @ Buddha under Section 411 IPC and 307/34 IPC. Charge was framed against accused Sumit @ Langda Section 307/34 IPC & 174A IPC.
19. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 Hira Mandal who is the complainant. He deposed about the fact of having seen the injured in the company of accused persons on the previous night. He was later informed about his brother-in-law being in injured condition from where he took him to the hospital.
20. He is the witness to recovery of clothes of accused persons which were worn by them at the time of incident. Further he identified the mobile phone of his brother-in-law which was recovered from accused Parmod Buddha. He is also a witness to recovery of blood stained stone, earth control, blood stained piece of glass, blood stained clothes of accused Sumit and blood stained clothes of accused Parmod.
21. The next important witness of the prosecution is the injured who deposed that on 23.02.2017 he alongwith both the accused persons went to the park and they all consumed liquor. A quarrel ensued between them and in the process both the accused persons lifted stones and hit the same on the back of his head. He became unconscious and regained consciousness in the hospital. POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:07:12 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 28 of 45 FIR no.92/17
22. Prosecution also examined PW6 Nitesh who is the son of the complainant. He deposed that on 23.02.2017 at about 11:00 pm when he went outside to ease himself he saw both the accused persons beating a man who was lying on the ground.
23. Besides these three witnesses prosecution also examined PW2 brother of the victim who deposed that the victim purchased sim of Jio company on his identity proof and PW4 Ms. Shweta Suri was produced in the witness box to prove that she gave the mobile phone to the victim. She handed over the bill of the said phone Ex.P7 to the IO.
24. PW13 Sh. Suresh Singla was examined to prove FSL report Ex.PW13/A by virtue of which he returned a finding that Alleles on shirt of accused Sumit was accounted in the Alleles on the cloth piece of victim.
25. Other police witnesses were examined to prove arrest and recovery from the accused persons.
26. The present case is based on the ocular testimony and PW3 Raju who is the victim and the eye witness. His testimony would require to be scrutinized in order to prove the offence with which the accused persons have been charged. Before proceeding further it would be pertinent to understand the law relating to the ocular testimony as discussed in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2017 decided on 14.07.2022 POOJA TALWAR wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 29 of 45 16:07:18 +0530 FIR no.92/17
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 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 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 POOJA of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn TALWAR out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 30 of 45 16:07:23 +0530 FIR no.92/17 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 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 POOJA TALWAR the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 31 of 45 TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:07:29 +0530 a 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."
27. In view of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case testimony of eye witness will be scrutinized herein after.
28. With this backdrop I proceed to decide the charges levelled against the accused persons.
29. Accused persons have firstly been charged for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries on the person of Raju with brick and broken glass pieces of bottle with an intention or knowledge that the same could have POOJA TALWAR caused his death.Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:07:35 +0530
SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 32 of 45 FIR no.92/17
30. In order to prove the said offence evidence of PW3 Raju would be relevant. He deposed that on 23.02.2017 he went alongwith accused Parmod @ Buddha and Sumit @ Langda to have drinks. On his way he met his brother-in-law PW1 Hari Mandal. During the drinking session they entered into an argument after which both the accused persons hitted stones and hit him on his head.
31. In his cross-examination it was suggested to him by the defence counsel that since he consumed large quantity of liquor hence he himself fell on the road and his head hit against the stones and he sustained injuries. Another suggestion given to him is that he deposed falsely at the instance of his brother-in- law.
32. PW1 Hari Mandal corroborated his testimony on the aspect of being with the accused persons on the date of incident. He also mentioned about his son PW6 Nitesh who saw both the accused persons assaulting a man.
33. PW6 Nitesh entered into the witness box and deposed that he saw both the accused persons assaulting a man at night.
34. Testimony of aforesaid three witnesses could not be impeached despite extensive cross-examination. In case the testimony of the three witnesses is read together it proves on record that victim Raju was last seen with accused persons on the day of incident. Accused persons were seen by PW6 Nitesh POOJA beating someone on the said date and PW1 Hari Mandal found TALWAR Digitally signed SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 33 of 45 by POOJA TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:07:43 +0530 victim Raju in injured condition.
35. It would be pertinent to mention here that the defence taken by the accused persons in the cross-examination of victim Raju is that he has falsely implicated the accused persons at the instance of his brother-in-law PW1 Hari Mandal. Now during the cross-examination of PW1 Hari Mandal the only suggestion given to him is that he did not enter the house of accused Parmod Buddha at the time of alleged recovery. No suggestion has been given to him suggesting motive of false implication.
36. When it is suggested to victim Raju that he has deposed falsely at instance of PW1 Hari Mandal then it was incumbent upon the accused persons to carve out the motive of false implication.
37. Further the only suggestion given to PW6 is that he did not see the accused persons beating anyone. However no motive of false implication has again not been assigned to his testimony.
38. Testimonies of aforesaid three material witnesses could not be impeached despite extensive cross-examination and no motive of false implication could be brought on record.
39. At this stage it would be relevant to discuss the POOJA credibility of testimony of injured witness. The law with respect TALWAR to appreciation of evidence of an injured witness has been settled Digitally signed by POOJA in the following pronouncements: TALWAR Date:
2026.04.28 16:07:49 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 34 of 45 FIR no.92/17 (A) In Mukesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as AIR 2017 SC 2161 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "The depositions of an injured witness should be relied upon, unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the same stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident."
(B) In Maqsoodan Vs. State of UP reported as (1983) 1 SCC 218 the Hon'ble Supreme court observed that: "Presence of an injured witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of the incident and they should normally be not disbelieved."
(C) The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "In a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care." Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "Whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any POOJA other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole TALWAR Digitally signed SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 35 of 45 by POOJA TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:07:56 +0530 touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box;
their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978)."
40. Once PW3 Raju who is the victim/injured herein categorically deposed that he was with both the accused persons and that he was assaulted with stones on the back of his head by both of them, the accused persons had to explain that why they were named as the perpetrators and were falsely implicated.
41. On the contrary it is admitted by the accused persons that they were present with the victim but they did not give beatings to him.
42. There is no denial of fact that prosecution has to stand on its own legs and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is discussed in length above that an injured is presumed to name the right person as his assailant, unless contrary is proved, the presumption will weigh in favour of injured.
43. Presence of the accused persons with the victim is also proved through the testimony of PW1 Hari Mandal who saw the trio going together in the night and through the testimony of POOJA TALWAR PW6 Nitesh who saw both the accused persons giving beatings to Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 36 of 45 Date: 2026.04.28 FIR no.92/17 16:08:02 +0530 a person. Moreover, the victim PW3 Raju was rescued from the same place where Nitesh PW6 had seen both the accused giving beatings to a person.
44. Once the prosecution succeeded in proving that both the accused persons were present at the place and time of incident, the onus then shifted to the accused persons to prove the contrary.
45. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons not only relied upon the oral testimony of the witnesses but also on the medical and forensic evidence.
46. Medical Evidence- Counsel for accused persons on 17.12.2019 admitted MLC no.51176 of injured Raju under Section 294 CrPC. Hence the concerned doctor was not produce in the witness box. As per the MLC the injury caused to the victim was simple caused by weapon (blunt + sharp).
47. Forensic Evidence- It is deposed by PW1 in his examination in chief that injuries were inflicted with stones. PW1 Hari Mandal identified the blood stained stones Ex.P3 and P6 seized by the IO from the place of incident. He also identified blood stained pieces of glass Ex.P5 seized by the IO in his presence from the place of incident.
48. He also identified blood stained clothes of accused POOJA TALWAR Sumit @ Langda Ex.P7 and blood stained clothes of accused Parmod @ Buddha Ex.P8. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.04.28 16:08:43 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 37 of 45 FIR no.92/17
49. No suggestion is given to PW1 Hari Mandal that no recovery as stated above was affected in his presence or that the same has been planted on the accused persons. His testimony on the aspect of recovery of blood stained clothes, blood stained pieces of glass as well as blood stained clothes of both the accused persons stand unrebutted and uncontroverted.
50. Presence of complainant is also proved through testimony of PW10 HC Siya Ram who was present at the time of recovery with the IO. In his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel he stated that complainant was present with them at the time of recovery of articles. No suggestion is given to this witness that the complainant was not present at that time.
51. As per testimony of PW8 HC Surender the case property was deposited in the Maalkhana on 24.02.2017 and the same was sent to FSL. This witness has not been examined hence the depositing of the case property as well as sending it to FSL stands proved.
52. As per PW9 Ct. Jaideep he deposited the exhibits in the FSL Rohini on 07.04.2017. Till the time the exhibits remained in his custody the same were intact and were not tampered. Testimony of this witness too stands unrebutted and uncontroverted as he was not crosse-examined on behalf of the accused persons.
53. PW13 Suresh Kumar Singla Scientific Officer CFSL Rohini proved his report Ex.PW13/A and stated that the alleles POOJA TALWAR from the shirt of accused Sumit @ Langda was accounted in the Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 38 of 45 TALWAR FIR no.92/17 Date: 2026.04.28 16:08:50 +0530 alleles from the gauze piece of the victim.
54. As discussed above the exhibits were properly sent to FSL in an untempered condition which is evident from testimony of PW9 and PW13. The positive report qua accused Sumit @ Langda further corroborates testimony of complainant and PW3 victim Raju that injuries to him were caused by accused Sumit @ Landa.
55. Even though there is no positive forensic report against accused Parmod @ Buddha yet there is ample ocular evidence against him to connect him with the offence.
56. Prosecution through the testimonies of witnesses has been able to prove that the offence against PW3 Raju was committed by both the accused persons.
57. Both the accused persons have been charged for offence under Section 307/34 IPC for causing injuries to Raju with an intention or knowledge that the injury so caused could have caused his death.
58. Now the question which needs deliberation is whether they are liable under Section 307/34 IPC for causing injuries to Raju with an intention or knowledge that their act would have caused his death.
59. In case the MLC of victim Raju is discerned it POOJA would reveal that the victim sustained simple injuries with blunt TALWAR and sharp weapon. The injuries sustained by Raju is on various Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 39 of 45 Date: 2026.04.28 FIR no.92/17 16:08:55 +0530 parts of body.
60. Pre requisite to prove section 307 IPC is intention or knowledge and the injuries caused are such as are likely to cause death.
61. Admittedly no opinion has been taken from the doctor on the injuries sustained by the victim whether the said injuries in the ordinary course were sufficient to cause death.
62. Moreover it is clear from the testimony of the victim that an argument ensued on spur where he held the collar of the accused persons first and thereafter they assaulted him with stones lying near them.
63. From the testimony as discussed above there was no per-meditation and the quarrel took place on the spur of the moment and also for the reason that both the victim and the accused persons were under the influence of alcohol.
64. The intention or knowledge on the part of accused is to be assessed from the manner in which the injuries were caused, the nature of injuries and the specific part of the body where such injuries were sustained. Hence it is difficult to hold that accused persons had intention or knowledge to inflict said injury which was sufficient to cause death and hold them guilty of culpable of homicide or murder.
65. It is proved on record that injuries were sustained by POOJA the victim at the hands of accused persons though not with an TALWAR Digitally signed SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 40 of 45 by POOJA FIR no.92/17 TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:09:05 +0530 intention or knowledge to cause death. It is alleged by victim that he was hit with stones.
66. Accordingly I am of the considered opinion that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out.
67. Although, prosecution has failed to prove that offence under Section 307 IPC is made out but in view of Section 222 CrPC when offence proved is included in the offence charged, even if the charged offence is not proved the same would not entail acquittal in case the offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence. Section is reproduced herein under:
222. When offence proved included in offence charged- (1)When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.(2)When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.(3)When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.(4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence POOJA have not been satisfied." TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 41 of 45 Date:
FIR no.92/17 2026.04.28
16:09:11 +0530
68. Offence under Section 323 IPC is a minor offence included within Section 307 IPC. Section 323 reproduced herein under:
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
69. In view of the law as laid down by Apex Court it is settled law that for the purpose of Section 323 IPC the nature of injury is critical to determine the liability of the offender. It is also required to be proved that the offence was committed voluntarily with an intention to cause hurt.
70. It has been proved in the preceding paragraphs that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to victim PW3 Raju which is proved through his MLC coupled with the other reliable ocular evidence.
71. Accused Parmod @ Buddha is charged with the offence under Section 411 IPC for being in possession of mobile phone make LYF of victim Raju.
72. It is deposed by PW1 Hari Mandal that he informed the police that Raju had a mobile phone but when he was rescued from canal no mobile phone was found there. On interrogation accused Parmod @ Buddha led the police to his house and got POOJA TALWAR the mobile phone recovered from there. Seizure memo of the Digitally signed phone Ex.PW1/F bears the signatures of complainant at point A. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:09:46 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 42 of 45 FIR no.92/17 No suggestion is given to this witness that no recovery from the house of accused was affected in his presence.
73. PW2 Sanjay Brother of the victim who deposed that the victim got a sim of Jio company issued on his identity proof.
74. Prosecution also examined PW4 Ms. Shweta Suri who handed over the bill of mobile phone recovered from accused Parmod @ Buddha which she had given to victim Raju who was working in her house.
75. PW17 SI Baljor Singh was the IO, he categorically deposed about the recovery of mobile of the victim from accused Parmod @ Buddha, however no specific suggestion has been given to him that no recovery of phone was affected from the accused but a general suggestion is given that nothing was recovered at the instance of both the accused persons.
76. Despite extensive cross-examination testimony of PW17 could not be impeached.
77. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the mobile phone of the victim was recovered from the possession of accused Parmod @ Buddha who retained the same after assaulting the victim.
78. Further accused Sumit @ Langda has also been POOJA charged for the offence under Section 174A IPC for non TALWAR appearance before the court despite issuance of proclamation and Digitally signed by POOJA being declared as Proclaimed Offender by the court vide TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:09:52 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 43 of 45 FIR no.92/17 Ex.CW1/A to CW1/F respectively.
79. Upon his arrest PW14 Ankur and PW15 HC Kulwant have been examined. No suggestion is given to the said witnesses that the accused was not residing at the address where the proclamation was issued. No explanation has been given in the statement of accused recorded about his non presence in court and there is a simple denial "It is incorrect".
80. On discerning the statement of HC Radha Krishan CW1 this court is of the considered view that the proclamation was properly executed and despite execution accused deliberately avoided appearance in court and is thus liable under Section 174A IPC.
81. Keeping in mind the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion both the accused persons Parmod @ Buddha and Sumit @ Langda having common intention caused hurt to the victim Raju. Offence under Section 323/34 IPC stands proved against accused Parmod @ Buddha and Sumit @ Langda for causing hurt to victim Raju. Accused Parmod @ Buddha was found in possession of mobile phone of victim Raju which he had retained knowing to be stolen property. Hence offence under Section 411 IPC stands proved qua him. Accused Sumit @ POOJA Langda deliberately avoided appearance in court despite TALWAR proclamation under Section 82 CrPC executed against him.Digitally signed
Hence liable under Section 174A IPC. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:09:57 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 44 of 45 FIR no.92/17 Conclusion:
82. In view of the afore-said findings, accused persons Parmod @ Buddha and Sumit @ Langda are convicted under Section 323/34 IPC for causing hurt to victim Raju. Accused Parmod @ Buddha is convicted for commission of offence under Section 411 IPC. Accused Sumit @ Langda is also convicted under Section 174A IPC.
Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) POOJA on 28.04.2026 ASJ-01(FTC) West District, TALWAR Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:10:04 +0530 SC No. 381/17 State. Vs. Parmod @ Buddha & Anr. Page : 45 of 45 FIR no.92/17