Delhi District Court
State vs Injir @ Inderjeet on 30 April, 2026
1 / 23
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUNEESH GARG, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNW01-001558-2020
State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet
FIR No. 134/2015
PS: Shalimar Bagh
u/s. 392/397/34 IPC
(a) Session Case No. 93/2020
(b) Date of offence 01.02.2015
(c) Accused Injir @ Inderjeet
S/o. Asrfi
R/o. Jhuggi No. T-115,
Indra Colony, Fatak No. 07,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
(d) Offences charged u/s. 308/392/394/34 IPC
with
(e) Plea of accused Not guilty
(f) Final Order Acquittal u/s. 308/392/394/34 IPC
Conviction u/s. 323 IPC
(g) Date of institution 05.03.2019
(h) Date when judgment 24.02.2026
was reserved
(i) Date of judgment 30.04.2026
Digitally signed
MUNEESH by MUNEESH
GARG
GARG Date: 2026.04.30
17:02:25 +0530
State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 1 of 23
2 / 23
JUDGMENT
1. This is the prosecution of accused for the offence punishable u/s 308/394/397/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) on a charge sheet filed by the Police Station Shalimar Bagh subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 134/2015.
2. The facts of the case as projected by prosecution are that accused Injir @ Inderjeet had a previous enmity with complainant due to a quarrel which took place five months prior to the incident in question. Complainant alleged in his statement that on 01.02.2015, at about 5:30 PM, when he was roaming in the park, accused started abusing him and he along with his three associates hit him on his head and his body with stones, belt and dandas and caused injuries on his body. He also alleged that one of them had also taken away/robbed his Rs.5,000/- from his pocket.
3. IO carried out necessary investigation after registration of FIR. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. During the course of investigation, IO arrested the accused Injir @ Inderjeet at the instance of complainant and recorded his disclosure statement. Co-accused Rohit, Bablu and Rohit could not be traced. After completion of investigation, charge sheet in the matter was filed.
Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 17:02:30 +0530 2 of 23 3 / 23
4. On 05.03.2019, police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) was put up before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate with a view to put accused for trial. In the light of the police report and the documents filed alongwith the same, learned Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences complied with the provisions of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, committed case for trial.
5. On 15.07.2022, charge was framed against accused for having committed offences punishable under sections 308/392/394/34 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses. A brief scrutiny of prosecution evidence is as under:
(i) PW-1 Surender Kumar, who is the victim in this case, deposed inter-alia that on 01.02.2015, at about 05/5:30 PM, he had gone for roaming in a park which is also known as Beri Wala Bagh, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. After roaming in the park for a while he sat on a bench in the park. Accused Inderjeet alongwith his three associates came to him and they caught him from behind and started beating him with belt, stones and Digitally signed by MUNEESH GARG MUNEESH Date: GARG 2026.04.30 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 17:02:35 3 of 23 +0530 4 / 23 danda. He also deposed that he does not remember what weapon was used by Inderjeet but they also hit on his head. He became unconscious. He was having cash of Rs.5,000/- in the pocket of his pant, which he had taken from one Satpal who was resident of Badli. He was given that Rs.5,000 in lieu of his work of 10 days. When he got consciousness, he found himself in BJRM hospital and his cash of Rs.5,000/- was not in his pocket. He also came to know that someone made call to the police from his mobile phone. Police took him to the hospital from the park. He got stitches on his head. He sustained injuries on his entire body. His statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. On the same day, he was discharged from the hospital. He knew accused Inderjeet for the last 20 years. After registration of FIR, accused Inderjeet had never threatened him.
PW-1 also deposed that 1 - 1 1/2 months before the present incident, accused Inderjeet had a quarrel with him and he caught his collar (gireban). He had made call at 100 number at that time. Accused Inderjeet was in drunken condition at that time and he was just passing nearby panwadi shop and accused Inderjeet caught his gireban and stated "jayada Rangbaz banta hain, mein tujhe dekh lunga". Accused used to tell him that as he was caught by the police and had to spend Rs.2,500/- in that matter, he would see him. PW-1 further deposed that due to the said earlier incident, accused inflicted injuries to him.
Ld. Additional PP cross-examined PW-1, after seeking permission from the Court, on the point of preparation of site plan and regarding taking out of Rs.5,000/- from his pocket by Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date:
State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 4 of 23
2026.04.30
17:02:40
+0530
5 / 23
accused. During cross-examination by Ld. Additional PP,
PW-1 admitted that he had shown the place of incident to the police. He also admitted that one of the abovesaid four accused persons including accused Inderjeet had taken out cash of Rs.5,000/- from the right side pocket of his pant. The witness correctly identified the accused before the Court. PW-1 was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity and was discharged. However, on an application under section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, the witness was recalled for cross- examination and the witness was cross-examined and discharged.
(ii) PW-2 SI Jai Chand (the then Head Constable) deposed inter-alia that on 01.02.2015, he was working as duty officer. On that day, he registered FIR Ex.PW-2/B on the basis of rukka sent by ASI Suresh. He had made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW2/A. He had also issued certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW-2/C. After registration of FIR, the original rukka and printout of FIR were handed over to Constable Raj Kumar for further transmission to ASI Suresh.
(iii) PW-3 HC Surjeet (the then Constable) deposed that on 13.09.2015, he joined the investigation alongwith IO Suresh Pal. At about 4 p.m., they along with complainant Surender Kumar reached at PC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Accused Injir @ Inderjeet apprehended by him and ASI Suresh Pal at the instance of complainant. IO interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest and personal search memo Ex.PW3/A Digitally signed by MUNEESH GARG MUNEESH Date: GARG 2026.04.30 17:02:46 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 5 of 23 6 / 23 and Ex.PW3/B respectively. IO had also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW-3/C.
(iv) PW-4 ASI Arun Tomar deposed that on 10.03.2018, further investigation of the case was assigned to him. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before Court.
(v) PW-5 Dr. Himanshu deposed that on 01.02.2015, he was posted at BJRM Hospital as SR, Orthopaedic. On that day, at about 7.25 p.m., one patient namely Surender was referred to him vide MLC No.91661. Accordingly, patient was clinically examined for shoulder pain and X Ray. X Ray was reported as normal by the radiologist. The MLC was exhibited as Ex.PW5/A.
(vi) PW-6 Retired SI Suresh Pal (the then ASI) is Investigating Officer. He deposed inter-alia that on 01.02.2015, on receipt of DD no.34-A Ex. PW-6/A, he alongwith Constable Raj Kumar reached at Beri Wala Bagh near Fatak, Shalimar Bagh. Injured had already been shifted to BJRM hospital by the PCR van. They reached BJRM hospital and collected the MLC of injured Surender, who was under treatment. He recorded statement of injured and prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/B and got the present case registered u/s 394/397/34 IPC by sending Ct. Raj Kumar to the PS. He prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant which was exhibited as Ex.PW6/C. Accused Injir @ Inderjeet was apprehended on 13.09.2015 on the identification of complainant, who disclosed the name of his other three Digitally signed MUNEESH by MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 17:02:51 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 6 of 23 7 / 23 associates as Rohit, Bablu and one another Rohit. Accused Injir @ Inderjeet was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW3/B. Accused Injir @ Inderjeet made the disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW3/C. The witness identified the accused in the Court.
7. Accused vide his separate statement u/s. 294 Code of Criminal Procedure, had admitted certain documents i.e. the MLC No. 91661 dated 01.02.2025 which is already Ex.PW5/A with regard to medical examination of victim/ injured Surender by Dr. Kumar Varunesh, JR Casualty and documents with regard to taking rukka to PS and registration of FIR. In view of the same, witnesses mentioned at Sr. No.5 Dr. Kumar Varunesh and at Sr. No.3 Ct. Rajkumar were dropped from the list of witnesses.
8. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded separately under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure on 29.01.2026, in which all the incriminating testimonies and other pieces of evidence were put to him. The accused denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that the complainant named him in the present case as one of the assailants due to previous enmity. Accused has further stated that he has been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from his possession.
Digitally signed by MUNEESH GARG MUNEESH Date: GARG 2026.04.30 17:03:01 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 7 of 23 8 / 23
9. Ld. Additional PP for State argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution and their testimonies has remained un-rebutted. He stressed on the fact that the accused had been duly identified by the witnesses in court, the witnesses have supported the prosecution and that the accused has failed to lead any evidence in his defenec. He has further submitted that the victim has turned hostile during cross-examination as he had been threatened by the accused and no reliance should be placed on the testimony of the complainant during cross- examination. He has further submitted that on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, commission of offences under section 308/392/394 IPC by the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that there are contradiction in the testimony of injured/complainant examained as PW-1. In examination-in- chief, the witness has supported the prosecution case whereas in the cross-examination, he has turned hostile about the role and identification of the accused. The witness has not identified the accused as the person, who attacked upon him, even he has not stated that the accused has stolen/stanched/removed money from his pocket. Further the witness has stated that some public persons had apprised him in the noon hours of the next date about the involvement of the accused and one of the attacker. The witness PW-1 stated that the name of the attacker had been apprised to him by one Babloo who used to work in Digitally signed MUNEESH by MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 17:03:14 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 8 of 23 9 / 23 vegetable market but the said person has not been cited as a witness.
10.1. Ld. Counsel further submitted that no recovery of the stolen property/cash was effected from the accused or from any place/person and without recovery of the case property, the charges are unsustainable and creates doubt in the case of prosecution. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has relied upon a Judgment titled as Wahid Vs. State of Delhi (2020) SC.
10.2. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the witness has not pointed out the place of occurrence, therefore, there is dispute in the preperation of the site plan.
10.3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the arrest of the accused is doubtful and suspicious, as PW-1 has not stated any fact about the arrest of accused, whereas PW-6 (SI Suresh Pal IO) has stated that the accused was arrested at the instance and identification of the complainant on 13.09.2015. It is further submitted that the manner of the arrest of the accused is highly doubtful, as no proper identification and pointing out is on record.
10.4. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 01.02.2015 and arrest of the accused is dated 13.09.2015 and during this interval of time, no notice for search was made qua the accused.
10.5. Ld. Counsel further submitted that when the witness has projected two versions, such evidence would become Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date:
2026.04.30 17:03:20 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 9 of 23 10 / 23 unreliable, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has relied upon certain judgment titled as Rajesh Yadav & Anr V. State of U.P Criminal Appeal no. 339-340 of 2014 Supreme Court of India and State of UP Vs. Ramesh Prasad Mishra (1996) SCC 360.
10.6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the cross examination of PW-1, Court observation was made that the witness started weeping and had stated that he is repeatedly apprehending threats from the accused but in examination-in- chief conducted on 05.01.2023, PW-1 specifically stated that after registration of FIR, accused Inderjeet had never threatened him.
10.7. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of PW-3 and PW-6 about the proceedings conducted including the arrest of the accused.
10.8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the nature of the injury is simple and there is no material adduced through the evidence about the commission of the offence under which, charges are framed.
11. This Court has carefully perused the material available on record and has considered the arguments advanced by Learned Addl. PP for the State as well as by Learned Defence Counsel.
Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 17:03:25 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 10 of 23 11 / 23 In Respect of Charge U/s 308 IPC
12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.02.2015, the accused along with three other persons attacked the victim from behind and started beating him with belt, stones and danda. Accused persons including accused Inderjeet hit him on the head.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-1, i.e. the complainant has turned hostile during his cross-examination. In this regard, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, is to be noted, wherein five-judges Constitution bench of Hon'ble Court held as follows:
"87. Therefore, this Court cautioned that even if a witness is treated as "hostile" and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. It is for the Judge as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile"
does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness"testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence."
14. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as follows:
Digitally signed by MUNEESHMUNEESH GARG GARG Date:
2026.04.30 17:04:04 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 11 of 23 12 / 23 "22. The expression "hostile witness" does not find a place in the Evidence Act. It is coined to mean testimony of a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party. We must bear it in mind that a witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief-
examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief- examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief-examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross-examination. Once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief- examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion."
15. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khujji vs. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627 wherein the Hon'ble Court held as follows:
6.... the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from the record and that part of the evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. It seems to be well settled by the decisions of this Court -- Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana [(1976) 1 SCC 389 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 7 :(1976) 2 SCR 921], Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa [(1976) 4 SCC 233 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 566 : AIR 1977 SC 170] and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka [(1980) 1 SCC 30 :1980 SCC (Cri) 59 : (1980) 1 SCR 95] -- that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.Digitally signed by MUNEESH
MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 17:04:13 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 12 of 23 13 / 23
16. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C. Muniappan vs. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as follows:
"83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence."
17. In Shokeen vs. State of Haryana, 2023:PHHC:161666-DB , decided 15.12.2023, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court elaborated on how the testimony of a witness who turns hostile during cross-examination should be appreciated.
17.1. The Court noted that the complainant (PW-4) had supported the prosecution's case in his examination-in-chief but later resiled during cross-examination, denying identification of the accused. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Bhagwan Singh V. State of Haryana (1976), Khujji vs. State of M.P.(1991), C. Muniappan Vs. State of T.N. (2010) and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2022), the Bench held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not automatically effaced from the record. Portions of such testimony that are trustworthy and corroborated by other reliable evidence can be safely relied upon.
17.2. The Court observed that the seven-month delay between the witness's examination-in-chief and cross-examination gave ample opportunity for the witness to be won over, and this must be considered while assessing credibility. Therefore, the Court accepted that part of the complainant's earlier statement which Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG Date:
GARG 2026.04.30 17:04:18 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet +0530 13 of 23 14 / 23
was corroborated by recovery of the weapon and forensic evidence. It reaffirmed that courts must assess the entirety of a hostile witness's evidence, accepting credible parts consistent with independent proof, rather than discarding the testimony wholesale.
18. In Selvamani vs. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 837 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered the evidentiary value of a hostile witness who turned hostile during cross- examination. The prosecutrix and her relatives had supported the prosecution in their examination-in-chief but later retracted their statements after a delay of over three months before cross- examination.
18.1. The Court, citing Khujji Vs. State of M.P., C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. and Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, reiterated that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in its entirety. Portions of such testimony that are reliable and corroborated by other evidence may still be accepted.
18.2. The Court emphasized that delays between examination- in-chief and cross-examination create opportunities for witnesses to be influenced, thereby undermining justice. Hon'ble Court found that the prosecutrix's earlier testimony, FIR, statement u/s. 164 CrPC, and medical evidence, showing injuries consistent with sexual assault, provided adequate corroboration.
Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 17:04:41 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 14 of 23 15 / 23
18.3. Hence, despite the witnesses turning hostile later, the credible and corroborated portions of their testimony were relied upon to uphold the conviction.
19. In the instant case, it is to be noted that the complainant during his examination-in-chief dated 05.01.2023 has deposed as PW-1 and has substantially corroborated the version of the prosecution. On 05.01.2023, the Counsel for the accused did not cross-examine the witness on the ground that he has been recently engaged and his cross-examination was deferred subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- for 28.04.2023. The witness was called for cross-examination on 28.04.2023 and opportunity to cross-examine was given to the accused, but the same was not availed and the witness was discharged with Nil opportunity for cross-examination.
20. PW-1 was recalled for cross-examination after an application under section 311 CrPC was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of the Court. It is to be noted here that PW-1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution during cross- examination.
21. During his examination-in-chief, the complainant had duly identified the accused in open court, however, PW-1 during cross-examination conducted on 18.12.2023 stated that the attack upon him was done from backside and due to darkness, Digitally signed MUNEESH by MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 17:04:56 +0530 15 of 23 16 / 23 he could not see the faces of the attackers. He further volunteered that after incident, he became unconscious and on the next day, public persons who saved him from the above-said attackers, apprised him regarding identity of the accused persons with the name of two attackers. The name of the attackers had been disclosed as Bablu, who works in vegetable market and second one was Injir.
22. It is a settled position of law that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in its entirety. The rule of evidence, i.e., falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, is not applicable in India. It has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that if a witness is treated as hostile and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon.
23. In the facts of the present matter, PW-1, i.e., the complainant has not turned hostile on the point of incident of attack upon him. The injured has duly narrated the offence which has taken place with him. He proved the complaint Ex. PW-1/A. He identified the accused during his examination-in- chief in the Court. The accused Injir @ Inderjeet was not a stranger at the time of attack as he was known to him for last 20 years prior to the incident in question. It is further to be noted Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date:
2026.04.30 17:05:01 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 16 of 23 17 / 23 that the accused had a motive to commit the offence as he was having grudge in his heart against the injured due to previous enmity. PW-1 categorically deposed in chief-examination that one month prior to the incident in question, accused had quarreled with him and he made call at 100 number at that time. PW-1 also deposed that accused used to threaten him that he would see him as police apprehended him on his complaint and he had to spend Rs. 2,500/- in that matter. The injured has turned hostile during cross-examination only on the point of identification of accused.
24. The injured, PW-1, initially deposed against the accused during his examination-in-chief on 05.01.2023. However, he turned hostile during his cross-examination on 18.12.2023, stating that his identification of the accused was a result of information given by public persons who saved him from the attackers. The time gap of nearly 11 months between his examination-in-chief and the hostile testimony, coupled with more than 8 years that have passed since the date of the incident, raises significant doubts about the reliability of his version regarding identification.
25. While the complainant had provided a coherent account of the offence during his examination-in-chief, his subsequent hostile testimony creates uncertainty. It is also possible that external factors, such as threats or influence from the accused, Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date:
State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 2026.04.30 17:05:07 +0530 17 of 23 18 / 23
may have caused the injured to alter his stance. Although the injured's testimony has been undermined by his hostile cross- examination, but this Court cannot overlook the fact that his cross-examination was conducted after a gap of 11 months. Here, it is pertinent to note the court observation recorded immediately after his cross-examination. When the Court questioned PW-1 about the ambiguity in his statement he started weeping and had stated that "he is repeatedly apprehending threats from the accused persons". This shocking fact is sufficient enough to explain the reason for change in stance regarding identification during his cross-examination viz-a-viz chief-examination. The complainant has identified the accused in Court and confirmed prior acquaintance of about 20 years in chief-examination. No suggestion was put to him in cross- examination that he did not know the accused. The hesitation expressed regarding visibility due to darkness is understandable, given that the complainant stated he was under threat. Such hesitation does not destroy the credibility of the core testimony. The defence plea of false implication due to prior enmity is unsubstantiated.
26. PW-1 has duly supported his complaint in chief- examination and identified the accused in chief-examination. PW-1 was taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital after the incident in question and there is no delay in registration of FIR. The entire chain of circumstances is further completed through the testimony of PW-6, Retd. SI Suresh Pal, who is the Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date:
2026.04.30 17:05:21 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 18 of 23 19 / 23 IO in the present matter, and who had visited the hospital and recorded the statement of injured in the hospital on the day of incident itself and got registered FIR through Constable Raj Kumar. Thus, there was no scope for embellishment in recording the version of complainant and no reason to doubt the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
27. The FIR records that the accused threatened to kill the complainant while carrying out the assault. The complainant sustained the following injuries as per MLC :-
i) CLW Size 5 × 1 cm on left frontal region
ii)CLW of size 3 × 1 cm on middle of frontal-parietal region
iii) Bruise of size 3 × 2 cm on left forehead Injuries were opined to be simple, and the complainant was discharged on the same day. Though injured deposed that he remained on rest for about one month, but there is no medical document to prove the aforesaid claim of injured as he was discharged from the hospital on the same day.
28. In order to convict an accused for offence under Section 308 IPC, it is necessary to arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof, namely, requisite intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide was existing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishan Singh & Anr vs. The State, set aside the conviction Digitally signed MUNEESH by MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 17:05:56 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 19 of 23 20 / 23 under section 308 IPC where six accused persons armed with lathis attacked the complainant and the injuries suffered by him as per the injury report were seven. All the injuries except injury no. 7 were simple one. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portions of the said judgment herein under :-
7. We have noticed hereinbefore that in his deposition PW-5 stated about the existing enmity between the parties. It does not appear from his deposition that he had made any statement to the effect that the accused had attacked him with an intention to kill.
The learned Trial Judge in his judgment solely relying upon the allegations made in the First Information Report opined that a case under Section 308 IPC was made out.
8. Interestingly, the learned Trial Judge observed that the charge under Section 308 IPC read with Section 149 thereof was proved, because the eye- witnesses had clearly sated that they were armed with lathis.
9. The learned Trial Judge did not notice the ingredients of Section 308 IPC which provides for existence of an intention or knowledge.
10.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
11. Before an accused can be held to be guilty under Section 308 IPC, it was necessary to arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof, namely, requisite intention or knowledge was existing. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that such an intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause culpable homicide is required to be proved. Six persons allegedly accosted the injured. They had previous enmity. Although overt- act had been attributed against each of the accused who were having lahtis, only seven injuries had been caused and out of them only one of them was grievous, being a fracture on the arm, which was not the vital part of the body.
12. The accused, therefore, in our opinion, could not be said to have committed any offence under Section 308 IPC. The same would fall under Sections 323 and 325 thereof.
Digitally signed MUNEESH by MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: 2026.04.30 17:06:04 +0530 State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 20 of 23 21 / 23
29. In the facts of the present case, though the FIR records that the accused threatened to kill the complainant while carrying out the assault but it does not appear from his deposition that he had made any statement to the effect that the accused had attacked him with an intention to kill. Further, no specific role has been attributed to the accused in the commission of offence. As per injured, he was attacked by four persons but he sustained three injuries as per MLC and all the injuries were simple one. There was no pre-mediation as accused alongwith his associates was already sitting in the park and attacked upon the complainant after seeing him. Further, PW-1 could not disclose as to what weapon was used by the accused Injir @ Inderjeet in the commission of offence.
30. In view of the above, it cannot be said that accused had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide. However, despite the injured's hostile stance, there is sufficient evidence against the accused for commission of offence under section 323 IPC and the same has been duly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
In Respect of charge under section 392/394 IPC
31. Accused is also charged for the commission of offence under section 392/394/34 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.02.2015, the accused along with three other persons had committed robbery of cash of Rs. 5,000/- from the Digitally signed by MUNEESH GARG MUNEESH Date: GARG State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 2026.04.30 17:06:56 21 of 23 +0530 22 / 23 possession of complainant by causing simple injuries on his head. The case of the prosecution rests solely upon the testimony of complainant as there is no other eye witness of the alleged robbery of Rs. 5000/-. PW-1 deposed that accused persons hit him on the head. He became unconscious. He was having cash of Rs. 5,000/- in the pocket of his pant which he had taken from one Satpal. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in BJRM hospital and his cash of Rs. 5000/- was not in his pocket. Thus, in his examination-in-chief, PW-1 has not stated that the accused persons, who attacked him, had taken out his cash of Rs. 5000/-. In such circumstances, the possibility of missing the cash from his shifting from the spot to hospital cannot be ruled out. The possibility of taking cash amount by someone else also cannot be ruled out in such circumstances when injured was in unconscious state. It is also relevant to note that Investigating Officer had not examined the said Satpal to verify the claim of complainant that he had given the cash of Rs.5,000/- to complainant in lieu of his work of 10 days and further this fact was introduced by the complainant for the first time in chief-examination. Though PW-1 admitted the suggestion put by Ld. Additional PP for the State that one of the abovesaid four accused persons including Inderjeet had taken out cash of Rs.5,000/- from the right side pocket of his pant but much weightage cannot be given to this part of testimony as explanation has been offered by PW-1 for his failure to disclose this material fact in chief-examination. Even during his cross- examination conducted on behalf of accused, PW-1 stated that he had not seen anyone while taking out cash from his pocket.
Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG GARG Date: State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 2026.04.30 17:07:06 +0530 22 of 23 23 / 23
In the light of aforesaid discussion, prosecution has msierably failed to prove the charge for offence under section 392/394 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for charge under section 392/394/34 IPC.
32. In view of the above discussion, accused namely Injir @ Inderjeet is acquitted for offences punishable under Section 308 IPC, however, he is convicted for offence u/s. 323 IPC, as the case falls under Section 323 IPC. Further, accused is also acquitted for charges u/s. 392/394/34 IPC.
33. At request, put up for arguments on quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by MUNEESH MUNEESH GARG
GARG Date:
2026.04.30
17:07:11 +0530
Announced in open (MUNEESH GARG)
Court on 30th day of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03
April, 2026 NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI / 30.04.2026
State Vs. Injir @ Inderjeet 23 of 23