Delhi District Court
State vs Anita on 15 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Anita
FIR No. 201/2012
U/s 325 IPC
PS : Uttam Nagar
Date of Institution : 28.08.2012
Date of Judgment : 15.02.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 9765/2019
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Chanderkala, S/o Sh.
Radhey Mishra, R/o D-50, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Date of commission of offence : 20.04.2012
4. Name of accused : Anita, w/o Sh. Ram Babu, R/o G-45, Vijaya Nagar, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Offence charged : U/s. 325 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Gaurav Dutt
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 1 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:25:07 +0530 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused Anita has been chargesheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 20.04.2012 at about 7 PM near D-47, Vijay Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, the accused Anita had beaten the complainant with a wooden stick due to which she had sustained grievous injury. Hence, it has been alleged that accused has committed offence punishable U/s 325 IPC.
3. After conclusion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed against the accused Anita under Section 325 IPC.
4. On receipt of chargesheet, cognizance of offences was taken. Copy of the chargesheet alongwith all annexures was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. After giving an opportunity to State as well as accused for making submissions on charge, charge for offence punishable U/s 325 IPC was framed against the accused on 18.03.2014 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 2 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:25:13 +0530
6. Prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case.
7. As PW-1, the complainant Chanderkala was examined by the prosecution who deposed that on 20.04.2012, she was residing at D-47, Vijay Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. She stated that she is a house wife. On that day, at about 6 PM, her two kinds namely Akash and Vikas were playing cricket in the street near her house along with other kids. While playing, ball hit the accused who was also her neighbour at that time. Thereafter, the accused came out to hit the kids. Consequently, the kids came back to the house in order to hid themselves. The complainant further stated that she was lying on the cot inside the house at that time. The accused came and started hitting her with a wooden stick on her legs and hands. Some one called at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and took her to the hospital. When questioned by the Court as to why she had made complaint on 06.05.2012 I.e. after almost 15 days from the date of the incident, the PW-1 stated that she got discharged from the hospital after 5 days and no action was being taken by the police. She further stated that police recorded her statement Ex. PW-1/A. Her MLC Ex. PW-1/B was conducted at DDU Hospital. Site plan was prepared by the police Ex. PW-1/C. State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 3 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:25:21 +0530
8. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court as she was resiling from her earlier statement. During the cross-examination, she stated that the accused did not argue with her before hitting her. She also stated that she did not state to the police that the accused had entered into an argument with her. She was confronted with her statement Ex PW-1/A wherein it was so recorded. She also denied giving any statement to the police that since the present incident was a neighbourhood dispute and the accused had apologised to her and promised to pay for her treatment, she had asked the police officials to not take any action. She further stated that the accused did not pay for her treatment and kept on abusing her. Therefore, she made the present complaint.
9. PW-1 was also duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she was hit by the accused at about 6:30 PM. None of the neighbours had gathered when she was being hit. She further stated that the accused had hit her and left her on the road by dragging her outside her house. She also stated that her neighbour Guddi had called the police but she did not state the name of Guddi to the police. She also could not tell the dimensions of the wooden stick by which she was hit. Police took her to the hospital at about 7:30 PM. She further stated that State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 4 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:25:29 +0530 she was conscious when she reached the hospital. She further stated that there were two steps in his house. Police recorded the statement of PW-1 only once. She could not state as to whether the site plan was prepared by the police or not. She denied the suggestion that her kids had an altercation with the children of the accused and she had come to intervene when she slipped from the two steps outside her house and sustained injuries. She also denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated the accused in the present case. She also denied the suggestion that she had made the statement after 15 days after consulting her family members and therefore falsely implicated the accused. She also denied the suggestion that she did not mention the name of Guddi as she had falsely implicated the accused. She also denied the suggestion that many persons had gathered at the spot. She also denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
10. Sh. Radhey Krishan was examined as PW-2. He deposed that he was residing at D-50, Phase-5, Om Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that on 07.05.2012, the accused was arrested by police officials vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A.
11. Dr. Deepsikha, Medical Officer, DDU Hospital was examined as PW-3. She deposed that on 20.04.2012, State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 5 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:25:35 +0530 20.04.2012, she was posted as CMO, DDU Hospital. On that day, at about 8:40 PM, one injured namely Chanderkala W/o Radhey Shyam was brought in the casualty by HC Bhagwan Singh with alleged story of physical assault as told by self. She was medically examined by Dr. Kripanshu (Junior Resident) who had prepared MLC bearing no. 7182 and referred the patient to Department of Orthopaedic after examination and initial treatment. The said MLC Ex. PW-3/A is in the handwriting of Dr. Kripanshu and bears his signature.
She further stated that Dr. Kripanshu had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabout was not known. She also stated that she could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Kripanshu as she had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duty.
12. Sh. Deshraj, Record Clerk, DDU Hospital was examined as PW-4 by the prosecution who deposed that he was deputed to appear and identify the signature of Dr. Lalit who left the hospital. He stated that he had seen the MLC No. 7182 of Chander Kala dated 20.04.2012. As per the MLC, the patient was referred to Senior Orthopaedics. The patient was examined by Dr. Lalit who opined that the injury was grievous in nature as per the report of radiologist Dr. Shipra. He further stated that both these doctors had left the hospital and their present State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 6 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:25:41 +0530 posting was not known. He also stated that he could identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Lalit and Dr. Shipra as he had seen them writing and signing during the course of his office hours. He further stated that Dr. Lalit had noted the MLC Ex. PW-3/A and opined the injury as grievous. Dr. Shipra had prepared the X-Ray report Ex. PW-4/A.
13. SI (Retd.) Rajender was examined as PW-5 by the prosecution. He deposed that the investigation of the present case was marked to him on 1406.2012. After the completion of the investigation, he had submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned Court.
14. Inspector Shravan Kumar was the investigating officer of the present case. He was examined by the prosecution as PW-6. During the examination-in-chief, he deposed that after receiving DD No. 49A, he along with Ct. Harsih reached at the spot i.e. D-47, Vijay Nagar, Maharani Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. There he found that PCR van had already taken the injured to the DDU Hospital. No public witness was found at the spot. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Harish reached at DDU Hospital and received MLC No. 7182/12 of the injured Smt. Chandra Kala. He had gone through the MLC and it revealed regarding physical assault to the victim and she was kept under observation. He further stated that State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 7 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:25:46 +0530 he had asked the complainant/injured Smt. Chander Kala to give her statement. However, she refused to give any statement and told that she would given her statement after consulting her family members. Thereafter, he kept DD No. 49A in pending condition. Thereafter, he contacted the complainant / injured many times but she did not give her statement. On 06.05.2012, he visited the house of the injured and recorded her statement. He further stated that he had obtained opinion on the MLC of the injured which was grievous in nature. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir in the present case Ex. PW-1/A and also prepared site plan Ex. PW-1/C. He further stated that during the course of the investigation, he had arrested the accused Anita on 07.05.2012 at the instance of husband of the complainant vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A, and, thereafter, he had released the accused on bail as the offence was bailable in nature. He correctly identified the accused in the Court. He also stated that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
15. PW-6 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During the cross-examination, he stated that he had recorded the statement of the complainant on 06.05.2012 by visiting her house. He did not make any entry in roznamcha while leaving the police station. He made the site plan at the spot itself. He searched for State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 8 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:25:51 +0530 weapon of offence I.e. danda but nothing was recovered. He further stated that he also searched for the eye-witness but no one was found. He asked the public persons to join the proceedings but they refused to join the same and left the spot without telling their names and addresses. He did not serve any notice to any public witness u/s 160 Cr.P.C who refused to join the proceedings. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and no proper investigation was conducted by him in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that he voluntarily did not make any public witness in the present case.
16. The record also transpires that without admitting the contents therein, the accused Anita had admitted the FIR No. 666/2021 and DD No. 49A dated 20.04.2012, Ex. X-1 to X-2 respectively. Accordingly, the formal proof of these documents were dispensed with in terms of Section 294 CrPC.
17. Since, no other witness was examined by prosecution, hence, the evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to allow her to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences against her wherein it was stated by accused that she was falsely implicated in the present case. She further stated that no such incident State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 9 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:25:57 +0530 had taken place on the day of the incident. She also stated that she did not hit the complainant. The complainant had slipped on the day of the incident from stairs due to which she had sustained injuries.
18. The accused chose to lead defence evidence (DE) and examined herself as DW-1 and one person namely Md.
Kalamuddin as DW-2. While deposing as DW-1, the accused stated that on 20.04.2012, the children of the complainant were playing with her children. Thereafter, the children started quarrelling with each other. After listening their noise, the complainant rushed outside her house. The house of the complainant was 3-4 feet high. The complainant was wearing saree at that time. Due to her running in a hurry, the complainant fell down as her saree got stuck in her legs. Due to the said fall, she suffered injuries as mentioned in her MLC. DW-1 further stated that at that time, she was present inside her house as she was suffering from fever. The said injury which was mentioned in the MLC of the complainant had occurred as the complainant fell down. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State.
19. The defence had also examined one person namely Md.
Kalamuddin as DW-2 who also deposed on similar lines as deposed by DW-1. He also stated that he was present on the road near the vacant plot at the time of State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 10 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:26:04 +0530 the incident. He was also duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State.
20. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of State as well as the accused.
21. Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that no incriminating materials could be found against the accused in the present case. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the complainant as there are certain material contradictions in the testimony of the complainant which would create doubts over her credibility. Also, the complaint was given by the complainant to the police with substantial delay which could not be explained by the prosecution. Further, other eye-witnesses of the incident were not examined during the course of the investigation.
22. Per contra, Ld. APP for the State submitted that the accused could be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the complainant as the same did not suffer from any material contradiction. The complainant had completely supported the case of the prosecution qua the culpability of the accused in the present case and her testimony could also be corroborated from the medical evidence available on record.
23. I have carefully considered the submissions made on State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 11 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:26:09 +0530 behalf of the parties and have perused the case file meticulously.
24. At the outset, in so far as the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused regarding conviction of the accused based on sole testimony of complainant is concerned, it should be noted that the said argument does not hold any ground.
25. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony of solitary witness if the same is unblemished and gains the confidence of the Court. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish a case. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is to be seen.
26. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 Crl. LJ 1023 , wherein the Apex Court had upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the sole testimony of a witness. The Hon'ble Court has held that "on the basis of solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 12 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:28:23 +0530 beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained."
27. The above discussed principle was reiterated (albeit with certain qualifications) recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. State (NCT OF Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015 decided on 12th October 2020 wherein it was held that conviction can be based on sole eye witness testimony only if he is wholly reliable. But if there are doubts about the testimony then the Courts will insist on corroboration. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 13 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:28:29 +0530 Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise"
28. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of State through Inspector of Police vs. Laly @ Manikandan @ Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424 has again reiterated the ratio that there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable.
29. Hence, in view of the above discussions, it becomes very clear that an accused can be convicted based on the sole testimony of witness/complainant. However, the said testimony must be unblemished and wins the confidence of the Court. If there is any contradiction or doubt over the reliability of the witness, then the Courts can insist on corroboration.
30. In the instant case, it should be noted that there are certain material contradictions between the complaint given to the police by the complainant Ex. PW-1/A and the testimony of the complainant recorded in the Court during the trial. In her complaint Ex. PW-1/A, the complainant stated that her children and children of the accused got into quarrel. Thereafter, the accused came out from her house and started arguing/quarrelling with the complainant over the said issue. The complainant in State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 14 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:28:35 +0530 her complaint had nowhere stated that immediately after the quarrel between the children, the accused came inside her house with a stick and beaten her. However, during her examination-in-chief, the complainant stated that when both her kids came back to the house, she was lying sleeping on the cot. At that time, the accused came and started hitting her with a wooden stick on her leg and hand. This would mean that the accused did not argue with the complainant and straight away entered into her house and started beating her. In fact, when the complainant was cross-examined by Ld. APP on this aspect, she stated that the accused did not argue her before hitting her. She specifically stated that she did not give statement to the police that the accused had entered into an argument with her.
31. Moreover, in her complaint given to the police Ex. PW-1/ A, the complainant stated that on the day of the incident, the son of the accused namely Rahul had quarrelled with her son Akash as her son refused to allow the son of the accused to play with him. Thereafter, after hearing the noise of the quarrel, the accused came out from her house and started arguing with the complainant. However, when the complainant was examined as PW-1 during the trial, she stated a completely different story. She stated that on the day of the incident, her two kids namely Akash and Vikas were playing cricket in the State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 15 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:28:40 +0530 street near her house and while playing, ball hit the accused who was her neighbour. Thereafter, the accused came after her kids to hit them but they came back to the house to hide themselves. However, the accused followed them to her house wherein she assaulted the complainant with a wooden stick. This is material improvement in the testimony of the complainant. She had stated a completely different story in her testimony in the Court. This would further raise doubts on her credibility.
32. Also, the complainant in his cross-examination had stated that the accused after beating her had also dragged her outside her house where she was found by her neighbour Guddi who called the police. However, this crucial fact was not mentioned in her complaint by the complainant. The said person Guddi would have been a crucial witness in the present case but she was never examined during the course of the investigation.
33. Further, it should be noted that the present complaint was given by the complainant with a substantial delay. The alleged incident had occurred on 20.04.2012, however, the complaint was given to the police only on 06.05.2012 i.e. after more than 15 days. IO PW-6 in his testimony had also stated that the complainant had refused to give any statement to him in the hospital on State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 16 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:28:45 +0530 the day of the incident by stating that she would give statement after consulting her family members. IO had further stated that he contacted the complainant multiple times but she did not give her statement.
34. During the examination-in-chief, when the complainant was asked about delay in giving the complaint to the police, she stated that she got discharged from the hospital after 15 days and no action was being taken by the police. I find this reply of the complainant as a vague statement. She did not give any proper reply to the question asked by the Court. She could not explain the reason behind the same. In fact, in her complaint given to the police Ex. PW-1/A, she had stated that the matter was settled with the accused as she apologised to the complainant and promised to pay for her medical treatment. However, when the accused did not do the same, she filed the present complaint. Although, the complainant had denied giving any such statement to the police, however, it could not be ignored that the complaint was indeed filed by the complainant after a substantial delay which could not be explained properly by her.
35. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that there are material improvements/ contradictions in her testimony. The possibility of the State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 17 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:28:51 +0530 complainant giving an afterthought and tutored complaint in the present case cannot be entirely ruled out. Hence, I find it unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the complainant in order to convict the accused in the present case.
36. Be that as it may, even if I consider the testimony of the complainant, I find that the same is not sufficient enough to prove the culpability of the accused in the present case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/s 325 IPC.
37. Section 322 IPC provides for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous harm which is a punishable offence u/s 325 IPC. It reads as under:
"322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.-- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt".
Explanation.--A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind."
38. "Grievous hurt" is defined in section 320 IPC in the following manner:
State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 18 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:28:56 +0530 "Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
(First) -- Emasculation.
(Secondly) --Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. (Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly) -- Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
(Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(Seventhly) --Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(Eighthly) --Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
39. A bare reading of the provision enshrined in section 322 IPC clearly suggests that the person causing hurt must have the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt and the hurt which is caused in consequence must also be grievous in nature as defined in section 320 IPC. It is not sufficient that the hurt which is caused is "grievous" if there is no prior intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mushirkha Bashirkha Musalman vs State Of Maharashtra 1982 SCC Online Bom 266 wherein while discussing the scope and applicability of section 325 IPC, it held the following:
State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 19 of 23 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:29:03 +0530 "The Judge is not to trouble himself with seeking for direct proof of what the offender thought was likely to happen, but is to infer the nature of his act, taking him to have intended grievous hurt, or at least to have contemplated grievous hurt as likely to occur, when he did what everybody knows is likely to cause grievous hurt, and the more certainly drawing this conclusion where there is evidence of previous enmity against the party who was suffered. If the act was such that nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensure from it, then although grievous may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be his duty to convict the offender of simple hurt only. A person can be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and the intention correspond, or when grievous hurt has been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, though it may be of a different kind. Though grievous hurt may be caused in an assault, it does not at all follow that the person who assaulted is guilty of causing grievous hurt under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. A person is only liable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code if he voluntarily cause grievous hurt and voluntarily causing hurt"
according to section 322 means if he intends to cause grievous hurt or knew himself to be likely to cause such hurt."
40. The above mentioned ratio was reiterated by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rabari Varva Jesang vs State Of Gujarat 1984 SCC OnLine Guj 68 wherein it was held that:
State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 20 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:29:08 +0530 "Courts should not overlook the act itself. In considering the act not only the result but knowledge or intention is to be considered. If the act was such that nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensue from it, then, although grievous hurt may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be Court's duty to convict the offender of simple hurt, judging that grievous hurt was not in his contemplation; for, according to Section 322 of the Indian Penal Code, a person can be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and intention correspond or when grievous hurt had been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, though it may be of a different kind. In the instant case, from the act of the petitioner- accused intention of causing grievous hurt cannot be inferred. In view of this, the conviction of the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code requires to be set aside."
41. Hence, conjoint reading of the provision enshrined in section 325 IPC and the above mentioned decisions of the Hon'ble Courts enlightens that if the grievous hurt is caused to the victim due to the act of assailant, he can be convicted for causing grievous hurt u/s 325 IPC only if he either intended to cause grievous hurt or had the knowledge (while doing the said act) that grievous hurt could be ordinarily caused. If intention/knowledge is missing then the accused cannot be convicted u/s 325 IPC even if grievous hurt is caused due to his act.
42. In the instant case, in order to prove that the accused State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 21 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:29:14 +0530 had beaten the complainant PW-1 with the intention to cause grievous injury or with the knowledge that grievous injury would be caused, the prosecution had primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant. Perusal of the testimony of the complainant would show that she had not deposed anything specific to support the case of the prosecution that the accused had beaten her with intention to cause grievous injury or with knowledge that grievous in injury would be caused. The accused had not beaten the complainant on sensitive parts of her body.
43. Further, as per the testimony of the complainant, she was beaten by the accused on her leg and hand. However, as per her MLC Ex. PW-3/A, she had sustained injuries on her left knee, right shoulder and upper lip. Surprisingly, the complainant did not disclose the fact that she had also sustained injuries on her lips. She could not have sustained injuries on her lips if she would have been beaten by the complainant on her leg and hand only. In fact, this injury would make the defence of the accused more probable that the complainant had suffered injuries after falling down from the stairs.
44. Therefore, in view of the above stated facts and circumstances and keeping in view the testimony of the State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 22 of 23 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.02.15 16:29:20 +0530 key witness, I find that there are insufficient materials on record to convict the accused in the present case for the offence punishable u/s 325 IPC.
45. Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, benefit of doubt goes to the credit of accused and accordingly, accused Anita W/o Ram Babu stands acquitted for the offences u/s 325 IPC.
46. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open court, on this day of 15th February, 2024.
Digitally signed by ANIMESHThis judgment consists of 23 signed pages. ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.02.15 16:29:26 +0530 (ANIMESH KUMAR) MM-08/South-West Dwarka District NEW DELHI 15.02.2024 State Vs. Anita FIR No. 201/2012 PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 15.02.2024 Page No. 23 of 23