Delhi District Court
State vs Kaiyum on 14 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW
DELHI
CNR no.DLST-01-004587-2021
Session Case No. 212/2021
In the matter of :
State
Versus
1. Kaiyum
S/o Sh. Istyak
R/o H. No. 156, Chandan Holla
Fatehpur Beri, South, Delhi
2. Ikramuddin
S/o Ikkam
R/o H. No. 156, Kallu Potla Mohalla
Chandan Holla, Fatehpur Beri, South
Delhi
FIR No. : 227/2020
Police Station : Fatehpur Beri
Under Section : 307/506/34 IPC
Date of assignment : 23.03.2021
Date on which arguments heard : 13.12.2025
Date of decision : 14.01.2026
Decision:- (1) Accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit is
convicted for offence punishable under section 308 IPC.
Samar (2) Accused Ikramuddin is acquitted for all offences to which he
vishal
charged.
Digitally signed
by Samar vishal
Date:
2026.01.14
16:21:16 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit and his brother Ikramuddin, have been prosecuted in the present case for 1 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged by the prosecution that they, acting in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted and inflicted beatings upon the family members of the complainant Sazid, as a result of which grievous injuries were caused to some of them.
2. The present case was registered on the basis of a written complaint, Ex. PW-1/A, made by the complainant, Sazid. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that on 12.06.2020, at about 10:30 p.m., he went to the shop of one Khali for the purpose of purchasing eggs, where the accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit was already present. It is alleged that the accused picked up a bottle of water lying in the shop and deliberately spat upon the complainant. Thereafter, the accused Samar vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal started abusing the complainant in filthy language and forcibly Date: 2026.01.14 16:21:21 caught hold of his collar. It is further alleged that the +0530 complainant's sister, Shahida, who was present in the house nearby, witnessed the incident and immediately came down to intervene and rescue the complainant. At this stage, the accused Kaiyum allegedly assaulted Shahida and kicked her on her abdomen. On witnessing this assault, the complainant's mother, Shakila, and his brother Rashid also rushed to the spot to save Shahida and the complainant. The complaint further states that the accused Kaiyum then went to his motorcycle, took out a wooden stick (danda), and started indiscriminately assaulting the complainant, his brother Rashid, his sister Shahida, and his mother Shakila with the said stick. It is alleged that the accused 2 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 struck the complainant on his left hand, hit Rashid on the backside of his head, assaulted Shakila on her face, and inflicted a blow on the forehead of Shahida. It is further alleged that during the course of this incident, the brother of the accused Kaiyum, namely Ikramuddin, also reached the spot and joined the accused. The accused persons allegedly threatened the complainant and his family members with dire consequences and extended threats to kill them. The complainant has further alleged that the threats did not stop at the place of occurrence and that they were again threatened by the accused persons in the hospital.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the First Information Report was registered and the investigation was entrusted to ASI Ashwani Kumar Dixit. The initial information regarding the incident was received by the police and was duly recorded vide General Diary (GD) Entry No. 54A. Pursuant thereto, HC Rajesh Kumar, along with Ct. Khushi Ram, proceeded to the place of occurrence. Upon reaching the spot, they came to know that the injured persons had already been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre for medical treatment. Thereafter, the police officials reached AIIMS Trauma Centre, where they found all four injured persons, namely the complainant Sazid, his brother Rashid, his mother Shakila, and his sister Shahida, undergoing medical treatment. HC Rajesh Kumar recorded the statement of the complainant Sazid, which is Ex. PW-1/A, and on the basis of the said statement, prepared the rukka and forwarded it for the registration of the FIR in 3 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 accordance with law.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer conducted the necessary proceedings, including visiting the place of occurrence, collecting the medical records of the injured persons, and recording the statements of the material witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, despite efforts, the alleged weapon of offence, the wooden stick (danda), could not be recovered during the investigation.
5. Upon completion of the investigation and after finding sufficient material against the accused persons, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet on 29.07.2020 against Samar vishal both the accused, namely Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit and his Digitally signed brother Ikramuddin, for the commission of offences punishable by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.14 16:21:25 +0530 under Sections 307, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. After taking cognizance of the offences, the case was committed to Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 23.08.2022, charges were framed against both the accused under Sections 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
7. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined a total of nine witnesses. The complainant Sazid was examined as PW-1, his brother Rashid as PW-4, his mother 4 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 Shakila as PW-5, and his sister Shahida as PW-6, all of whom were projected as injured and material eyewitnesses to the incident. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution comprised police officials associated with the investigation and formal witnesses, including those who proved the medical records and medico-legal certificates of the injured persons, thereby completing the prosecution evidence.
8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 16.07.2025, in order to afford them an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. In their respective statements, both the accused denied the entire prosecution case and the evidence that had come on record. They asserted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
9. The accused persons, inter-alia, contended that the place of occurrence was covered by CCTV cameras, but the investigating agency deliberately failed to collect or place on record the CCTV footage, which, according to them, would have demonstrated their innocence. They further alleged that the police did not examine or record the statement of the landlord of the complainant, who, according to the defence, was a material witness. Accused Ikramuddin specifically took the plea that he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident and had no role whatsoever in the occurrence.
5 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021
10. In support of their defence, the accused opted to lead evidence and examined two defence witnesses.
11. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Mr. Arun Kumar Singh as well as by the Learned Defence Counsel Mr. Salman Ali Khan and have carefully perused the entire material on record, including the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution and the defence.
12. The case of prosecution is based on the evidence of injured, who are also the eye-witnesses of the incident, corroborated by the medical evidence. A witness who has personally seen the occurrence of the incident under inquiry is regarded as an eyewitness. The testimony of an eyewitness, if found to be credible and trustworthy, carries significant evidentiary value and cannot be discarded without cogent reasons. It is well settled that a conviction can be sustained on the basis of the sole testimony of an eyewitness, provided it inspires full confidence of the Court. However, if the testimony is found to be partly unreliable or doubtful, the court may prudently seek independent corroboration to ensure the truthfulness of the Samarprosecution case.
vishal Digitally signed 13. Eyewitnesses play an important role in the criminal by Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.14 justice system. The quality of evidence of an eyewitness depends 16:21:30 +0530 on many factors prominent among them are his view in which the 6 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 crime is committed, his confidence with respect to the accuracy of the description of the crime and identification of the accused and his description, the amount of attention the witness paid to the crime during its occurrence, the probability of the witness being present at the place of incident, the accuracy and probability of what he is defining etc. The law related to the appreciation of evidence of eyewitnesses is completely settled that generally the testimony of eyewitness of the incident is considered credible unless and until it is specifically shown or proved to have a taint for any reason on which it is assailed.
Generally, the courts tend to believe what the eyewitnesses depose in the court and it is only when there exists grave and material discrepancies and contradictions in their statements which compels the court to think and doubt that whether the eyewitness is giving a truthful account, it can come in the domain of suspicion. When the tenacity and doggedness of the eyewitness is suspicious, when the truthfulness of the testimony of the eyewitness is shrouded in grave clouds of suspicion and falsity, the court may disbelieve that witness or may look for such corroboration of his evidence which are capable of removing the blemish from his evidence. However, the contradictions and omissions which are not material regards being to the facts of the case, those can be overlooked. The testimony of a victim of an offence also stands on the same footing.
14. In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, as a general rule, con- 7 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 viction can rest on the testimony of a single witness if the evi- dence is wholly reliable, as Section 134 of the Evidence Act mandates that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact. Corroboration is not necessary unless the statute requires it or the witness's testimony itself demands caution-- such as in the case of a child witness, accomplice, or similarly suspect categories. The Hon'ble Court emphasised that evidence must be weighed and not counted, and classified witnesses into three categories: wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable; in the last category, courts Samar vishal must look for material corroboration. The Hon'ble Court warned Digitally that insisting on plurality of witnesses may indirectly encourage signed by Samar subornation of testimony, and reaffirmed that where the evidence vishal Date:
2026.01.14 16:21:33 +0530 of a single witness is free from suspicion, competent, and trust- worthy, it is the duty of the court to act upon it, just as the inno- cence of an accused may equally be established through a single reliable witness.
15. In this case, I have carefully considered the testi-
mony of the witnesses, the documentary material on record, and the submissions of learned counsel for both sides. The central question is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge under Section 307/506/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence led in this case. As said above, the case is based on the evidence of vic- tims who all are also the eye witnesses. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its 8 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 case. Among them, PW-1 Sazid, the complainant as well as the injured witness, assumes paramount significance. Being the vic- tim of the alleged assault, he is the most material and natural wit- ness, as the prosecution case primarily hinges upon his account of the incident. His testimony, therefore, is of crucial evidentiary value, not only because he sustained injuries in the occurrence but also because he is stated to be an eyewitness to the entire se- quence of events. In cases involving offences under Section 307 IPC, the evidence of the injured witness carries great weight, as the law consistently recognises that such a witness, having re- ceived bodily harm in the incident, is least likely to shield the real assailant or falsely implicate an innocent person. Accord- ingly, his deposition warrants careful scrutiny and has a substan- tial bearing on the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
17. As PW-1, the complainant Sazid, deposed that at the time of the incident he was residing with his family at Masjid Wali Gali, Chandan Holla, Fatehpur Beri, Delhi, and was work- ing as a decorator in event programmes. He stated that in the in- tervening night of 11/12.06.2020, at about 10:30 p.m., he went to the shop of Khali to purchase a tray of eggs. At that time, accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit was already present at the said shop. According to PW-1, the accused picked up a water bottle from the shop, rinsed his mouth, and deliberately spat the dirty water on him. Thereafter, the accused abused him and caught hold of his collar. PW-1 further deposed that his sister, Sayada, who was witnessing the incident from upstairs in their house, im- 9 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 mediately came down to intervene and rescue him. When she at- tempted to do so, the accused Hashim kicked her in the abdomen. On seeing this, PW-1's mother Shakila and his brother Rashid also reached the spot.
18. PW-1 further stated that accused Hashim @ Pandit then brought a danda from his motorcycle and started assaulting him, his brother Rashid, his sister Sayada, and his mother Shak- ila. PW-1 specifically stated that the accused aimed a blow at his Samar vishal head with the danda, but he raised his hand in self-defence, as a Digitally signed by Samar vishal result of which he sustained injury on his left hand. He further Date:
deposed that his brother Rashid was hit on the head, neck, and 2026.01.14 16:21:37 +0530 backside of the head, his sister Sayada was hit on her cheek, and his mother Shakila was hit on her ear and face.
19. PW-1 further testified that during the course of the incident, accused Ikramuddin, brother of accused Hashim @ Pan- dit, also arrived at the spot and joined in the assault, giving beat- ings to PW-1 and his family members with a danda. Both the ac- cused allegedly threatened to kill PW-1 and his family members. PW-1 stated that he made a call to the police on 100 number, pur- suant to which the police arrived at the spot and taken him and the other injured persons to AIIMS Trauma Centre for medical treatment.
20. PW-1 further deposed that the police recorded his statement, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, bearing his sig- natures, and that he pointed out the place of occurrence to the po- 10 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 lice, on the basis of which a site plan was prepared, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B. During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he and accused Hashim @ Pandit belong to the same village and were known to each other, though they are not related. He stated that the accused had assaulted him with fists as well. He admitted that at the initial moment he was alone at the shop of Khali. PW-1 also admitted that there was previous enmity between him and accused Hashim @ Pandit since their school days, stating that the accused used to ask for his sheets. However, he denied the suggestion that the accused was merely his school friend and that the incident was only a prank or that no assault had taken place on the night of 11/12.06.2020. PW-1 categorically denied the suggestion that 4-5 persons were present with him and that they collectively caused injuries to accused Hashim @ Pandit. He stated that accused Ikramuddin came to the spot about five min- utes after the incident had started. He further stated that he used the mobile phone of a doctor residing on the upper floor of his house to make the call to the police. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that accused Hashim @ Pandit had used a rod during the assault. Upon a specific query from the Court regarding the discrepancy between his examination-in-chief (where the weapon Samar vishal was described as a danda) and his statement in cross-examination Digitally (where he used the term "rod"), PW-1 clarified that the outer signed by Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.14 structure of the weapon was wooden but inside it was iron, and 16:21:41 +0530 therefore he referred to it as a rod. He stated that the weapon was approximately three feet long and that it was brought by accused Hashim @ Pandit from his Bullet motorcycle, though he could not tell the registration number. He further stated that in his pres-
11 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 ence the weapon was not recovered by the police and volunteered that the accused had taken it away with them. He denied all sug- gestions that no incident of assault had taken place, that no weapon such as a danda or rod was used, that due to previous en- mity he had falsely implicated the accused persons, or that he was deposing falsely before the Court.
21. PW-4 Rashid, brother of the complainant, deposed that he is illiterate and has been residing at the given address since birth. He stated that the incident occurred during the lock- down period on the 21st day of the month, at about 10:30 p.m. While he was sitting on the roof of his house, he noticed his brother Sazid at the shop of Khalid situated in front of their house. According to PW-4, accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit came to the shop, spat water from his mouth onto Sazid, and abused him. Thereafter, the accused initially left the spot but soon returned along with his brother Ikramuddin. Both accused were allegedly armed with dandas and started assaulting Sazid. He further stated that upon witnessing the assault, his mother and sister came downstairs to intervene, whereupon they were also beaten by the accused persons. He specifically deposed that ac- cused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit kicked his sister on her stom- ach and further assaulted her with a danda which was sharp at one edge, causing injuries on her cheek. PW-4 stated that he is a paralytic patient and cannot move fast; nevertheless, he went down to save his family members, at which point accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit struck him with a danda on his neck. He further stated that accused Ikramuddin was simultane- 12 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 ously beating his brother and sister. Both accused allegedly ex- tended threats to kill the family members. He further deposed that calls were made to the police at 100 number by neighbours as well as by them. He stated that the accused persons attempted to enter their house. Thereafter, they were taken to the hospital in an ambulance where all injured persons were medically exam- ined. He further alleged that accused Kaiyum came to the hospi- tal and again threatened them with dire consequences. He further stated that the police reached the hospital and accused Kaiyum was apprehended there. He also claimed that on the next day he came to know that accused Kaiyum had escaped from the police station and that the said accused again threatened him. At this stage, as the witness had resiled from certain portions of his ear- lier statement, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was per- mitted to cross-examine PW-4. During such cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he had not told the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused Kaiyum had hit him on the head with a danda, though he was confronted with the relevant portion of his earlier statement. He, however, admitted that the incident had taken place on 11.06.2020. During cross-examination by the defence, he stated that his family consisted of two brothers and three sisters, one of whom was married and living separately at the time of the incident. He further stated that his father was present at home at the relevant time but was handicapped and could not walk without a stick. He stated that the house of the ac- cused was about 200 meters away from their house. He deposed that the police had inquired from the shop owner in his presence and that no CCTV camera was installed at the shop, though one 13 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 CCTV camera was installed near his house, about which he had informed the police. He admitted that no CCTV footage was seized by the police in his presence and that the danda was also not recovered in his presence. He stated that the police reached the spot later and that they were taken to the hospital by ambu- lance. He expressed inability to disclose the registration number of the motorcycle from which the accused allegedly brought the danda. He denied all suggestions put to him by the defence that no incident had taken place, that the accused persons had not as- saulted him or his family members with dandas, that accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit had not kicked his sister on the Samar stomach or spat water on the face of his brother Sazid, or that the vishal accused persons had been falsely implicated due to previous en-
Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.14 16:21:46mity. He also denied the suggestion that accused Kaiyum @ +0530 Hashim @ Pandit did not possess a motorcycle or that he was de- posing falsely.
22. PW-5 Ms. Shakila, mother of the complainant, de- posed that she is illiterate and had been residing at the stated ad- dress for about five years prior to the incident. She stated that on 11.06.2020, at around 10:30 p.m., her son Sazid went to purchase grocery items from a shop situated in front of their house. She deposed that accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit arrived at the said shop on his motorcycle, took a water bottle, washed his face, and thereafter deliberately spat the water on the face of her son Sazid. When Sazid questioned the accused about the said act, the accused caught hold of his collar and started beating him. She further stated that at the relevant time, her daughter Shahida and 14 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 son Rashid were present on the roof of the house and witnessed the incident, while she herself was inside the house taking a bath. On being informed by her children that accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit was beating Sazid, she came downstairs and saw that two persons had caught hold of her son while accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit was assaulting him with an iron strip. She intervened, rescued her son Sazid, and asked him to go inside the house. She further deposed that while they were mov- ing towards the house, accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit took out an iron rod from his motorcycle and struck her son Rashid on the back, causing him to fall to the ground. When she turned back, the accused hit her on her left temporal region with the said iron rod, as a result of which she sustained a serious in- jury requiring stitches. She further deposed that accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit also assaulted her daughter Shahida on her face with the iron rod. She stated that due to the injuries, she was not fully conscious and could only hear what was happening but was unable to see clearly. She further stated that blood started oozing from her mouth. She deposed that the police arrived at the spot and took her, her daughter Shahida, and her two sons to the hospital, where she received stitches and remained admitted for the entire night. She further stated that accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit also reached the hospital and continued to threaten her son Rashid with dire consequences and abused him. She stated that when her son challenged the accused in the pres- ence of the doctor, the doctor called the police, whereafter the ac- cused was taken away by the police. At the request of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, leading questions were put 15 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 to PW-5, and she admitted that accused Ikramuddin @ Ikkam, brother of accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit, had also reached the spot and beaten the family members with a danda. As PW-5 resiled from certain portions of her earlier statement, she was cross-examined by the prosecution. During such cross-exam- ination, she stated that she had not told the police in her state- ment under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused Ikramuddin had hit her son Rashid on the head, though she admitted that accused Ikramuddin was also threatening them. During cross-examination by the defence, she stated that she resided on the backside of the third floor of the house and that some other person resided on the front portion. She expressed inability to recall who had called the police on 100 number, though she stated that her husband might have done so. She deposed that she went to the hospital in a po- lice vehicle and that the police had inquired from her while she was being taken to the hospital. She further stated that she visited the police station once after being discharged from the hospital and that the shopkeeper from whose shop her son had gone to purchase eggs was taken to the police station and questioned by the police. She stated that the police did not inquire from neigh- bours, which she explained was due to the incident having oc- curred at night. She further stated that her son Rashid did not have any prior enmity with accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit and that the accused's house was at a walking distance of about 10-15 minutes from her house. She stated that her husband went to the roof at the time of the incident and clarified that he was handicapped. She categorically denied the defence suggestions that no incident had taken place, that the accused persons had not 16 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 assaulted her and her family members with dandas or rods, that the injuries were sustained due to a fall from a tin roof, that ac- cused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit had not spat water on her son Sazid, that the accused had been falsely implicated due to prior enmity, or that the accused did not possess a motorcycle. She also denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely before the Court.
23. PW-6 Ms. Shahida, daughter of Sh. Shakeel Khan, deposed that she is educated up to 9th standard. She stated that though she could not recall the exact date and month, the incident occurred in the year 2020 at about 10:30 p.m. when her brother Sazid went to purchase eggs from a shop situated in front of their house. At that time, she was standing on the roof of the third floor, while her brother Rashid was inside the house. She testified that while her brother Sazid was at the shop, accused Kaiyum ar- rived there on his motorcycle along with another boy. The ac- Samar vishal cused purchased a water bottle and washed his face, and when Sazid came out of the shop, the accused deliberately spat the wa- ter on his face. On witnessing this act, She shouted from the roof Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.14 and immediately came downstairs. She first went into a room on 16:21:51 +0530 the third floor and informed her mother and father about the inci- dent. At that time, her mother was taking a bath and her father, being handicapped, was present in the house. Thereafter, she along with her mother and brother Rashid, went downstairs. She further stated that a scuffle was going on between her brother Sazid and accused Kaiyum, which was initially separated by her mother. When they were proceeding towards their house, accused 17 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit took out a danda from his Bullet motorcycle, on one end of which a sharp-edged blade (aari) was attached, and struck her brother Rashid on the head, causing him to fall on the ground. She further deposed that the accused also struck her mother near her ear with the same weapon, as a result of which her mother sustained injuries and received stitches.
Thereafter, the accused hit PW-6 herself on the face with the sharp-edged portion of the weapon, causing injuries to her face. She further deposed that about five minutes after the incident, ac- cused Ikramuddin @ Ikkam, brother of accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit, reached the spot. Both accused then entered the building and again assaulted her brothers with dandas. There- after, all the family members went inside the gate of the building, and her mother became unconscious. She stated that their land- lady Shakeela arrived at the spot, and her brothers took their mother to the third floor. A neighbour called the police on 100 number, pursuant to which a PCR van arrived at the spot. PW-6, along with her mother and brothers, was taken to the hospital in the PCR van. She further stated that both accused persons also reached the hospital and threatened to kill her on seeing her there. She deposed that her mother remained admitted in the hos- pital for two days, while she herself was discharged the next morning, and her brothers were medically examined and dis- charged on the same day. She stated that the police inquired from her regarding the incident in the hospital. At the request of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, leading questions were put to her, and she admitted that the incident had taken place on 11.06.2020 and that accused Kaiyum had hit her brother Rashid 18 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 on the head with a danda. During cross-examination by the de- fence, PW-6 stated that she resided on the backside of the third floor of the house and that there was no electricity in the area at the time of the incident. She, however, maintained that she had seen the entire incident from the roof of the third floor. She stated that she had been residing at the said address since 2016 and that prior to the incident she knew accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit only by the name "Pandit." She stated that she did not know who exactly had called the police, though many neighbours had done so. She admitted that many public persons were present near the shop, but none came forward to rescue her brother Sazid. She further stated that the police did not seize any danda in her presence and that she did not know the registration number or colour of the Bullet motorcycle of accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit. She stated that three police officials took them to the po- lice station, though she did not know their names or designations, and that her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. She further stated that she came to know the name of accused Ikramuddin @ Ikkam later from her brother, though she was aware that he was the brother of accused Kaiyum. She categori- Samar cally denied all defence suggestions that no incident had taken vishal place, that the accused persons had not assaulted her, her mother, Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: and her brothers with dandas, that the injuries were caused due to 2026.01.14 16:21:56 +0530 a fall from a tin roof, that accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit had not spat water on the face of her brother Sazid, that the ac- cused had been falsely implicated due to prior enmity, that ac- cused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit did not possess a motorcycle, that accused Ikramuddin @ Ikkam never came to the spot, or that 19 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 she was deposing falsely before the Court.
24. PW-2, Sh. Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, was Medical Record Technician at AIIMS Trauma Centre and was duly authorised by the Faculty In-charge to appear before the Court. He proved and identified the Medico-Legal Certificates (MLCs) of the injured persons, namely Sahida, Rashid, Sazid and Shakila, which were prepared by the concerned doctors in the ordinary course of medical examination. He stated that the injured Sazid, Sahida, Rashid and Shakila were brought to AIIMS Trauma Centre by police officials on 11.06.2020 and 12.06.2020, and their alleged histories were duly recorded. He identified the signatures and handwriting of the doctors who examined the injured--Dr. Aditi Bijarniya, Dr. Hitesh Kumar and Dr. Ravi Shankar--on the respective MLCs, as he was familiar with their signatures from the course of his official duties. The doctors concerned had since left the service of the hospital and their present whereabouts were not known. Accordingly, PW-2 proved the MLCs of injured Sazid (Ex. PW2/A), Sahida (Ex. PW2/B), Rashid (Ex. PW2/C) and Shakila (Ex. PW2/D), as well as the authority letter permitting him to depose (Ex. PW2/E). He was not cross-examined by the defence despite opportunity being given.
25. PW-3, Dr. Prashant Tank, Senior Resident (Orthopaedics), AIIMS Trauma Centre, deposed on behalf of the doctors who had examined the injured persons and who had since left the services of AIIMS and whose present whereabouts were 20 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 not known. He proved the medical opinions recorded in the respective Medico-Legal Certificates (MLCs). He stated that injured Sazid was brought to AIIMS Trauma Centre on 12.06.2020 by a police official and was examined by Dr. Aditi Bijarniya. As per MLC No. 500234881 (Ex. PW2/A), the nature of injury suffered by Sazid was opined to be simple. He further deposed that injured Sahida was brought on 11.06.2020 and examined by Dr. Hitesh Kumar. As per MLC No. 500234880 (Ex. PW2/B), she had an incised wound over the right cheek measuring 12 × 1 cm and a laceration over the right side of the forehead, and the nature of injury was opined to be grievous sharp. With respect to injured Rashid, PW-3 stated that he was brought on 12.06.2020 and examined by Dr. Hitesh Kumar. As per MLC No. 500234882 (Ex. PW2/C), Rashid had a lacerated wound over the parieto-occipital region measuring 2 × 1 cm, and the nature of injury was opined to be grievous sharp. He also deposed regarding injured Shakila, who was brought on 11.06.2020 and examined by Dr. Ravi Shankar. As per MLC No. 500234879 (Ex. PW2/D), she had bleeding from the left ear and nose, and the nature of injury was opined to be grievous. In his cross-examination, PW-3 candidly admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the incident and was deposing solely on the basis of the medical records.
26.Digitally PW-7 (ASI Ashok Kumar) deposed in his capacity signed by Samar Samar vishal as the Duty Officer. He stated that on 12.06.2020, upon receipt of vishal Date:
2026.01.14 the rukka from HC Rajesh Kumar at about 01:35 PM, he 16:22:00 +0530 registered FIR No. 227/2020 in accordance with law. He proved 21 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 the computerised copy of the FIR as Ex. PW7/A, his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW7/B, and the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the authenticity of the FIR as Ex. PW7/C. His testimony establishes the prompt and procedural registration of the FIR.
27. PW-9 (HC Rajesh Kumar Meena) deposed regarding the initial police action on receipt of information. He stated that on 11.06.2020, while on emergency duty, DD No. 58A regarding a quarrel was assigned to him. He reached the spot along with Ct.
Khushi Ram but found that the injured had already been shifted to AIIMS Hospital. He thereafter reached the hospital, collected the MLCs, recorded the statement of injured/complainant Sazid after he was declared fit for statement, and prepared the rukka (Ex. PW9/B). He further deposed that he handed over the rukka to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR, after which the investigation was entrusted to ASI Ashwani. Despite cross- examination, his presence at the spot and hospital and the procedural steps taken by him remained unshaken.
28. PW-8 (ASI Ashwani Kumar), the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 12.06.2020 the case file was marked to him for investigation. He visited the spot along with the complainant and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant (Ex. PW1/B). He stated that efforts were made to trace the accused, and on 13.06.2020 accused Kaiyum was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. PW8/A), his personal search conducted (Ex. PW8/B), and his disclosure statement recorded 22 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 (Ex. PW8/C). He further deposed that notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served upon accused Ikramuddin, who joined the investigation. He collected the MLCs of the injured, recorded statements of witnesses, and upon completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Court. He candidly admitted that the weapon of offence could not be recovered and no public witnesses were examined at the spot. In cross-examination, he denied all suggestions of unfair investigation or fabrication of documents.
29. The accused have also examined two witnesses in their defence. DW-1 Smt. Khursida deposed that her husband Samar used to run a small grocery shop near Masjid Wali Gali, Chandan vishal Hola, which during the Covid-19 lockdown period in 2020 used Digitally signed by Samar to be closed by about 7:00 PM as per police directions. She stated vishal Date:
that accused Hashim @ Pandit, whom she knows as belonging to 2026.01.14 16:22:04 +0530 her native village, did not visit her shop on the date of the alleged incident. She further deposed that at around 10:30 PM on the relevant night, her husband had gone near the shop and found that the temporary tin roof of the shop had collapsed and police personnel were already present there. She claimed that on the next day police enquired from her son Rizwan, who expressed ignorance about any incident. In cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that the house of accused Hashim is at a walking distance from her house and that she knows PW-1 Sazid, his sister Sahida, and his brother Rashid. She also admitted that accused Hashim and Ikramuddin might have visited the shop in her absence when her children were present. She professed 23 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 ignorance about any quarrel or assault on the night of 11/12.06.2020 and denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely to save the accused on account of village affinity.
30. DW-2 Rizwan, son of DW-1, stated that during the Covid-19 period the grocery shop used to be closed around 7:00 PM in compliance with guidelines and that he was not present at the shop at night. He deposed that police officials had enquired from him on the night of 12.06.2020 regarding any quarrel near the shop, and he informed them that no such quarrel had taken place to his knowledge. He further stated that there were CCTV cameras installed near the shop and that police did not seize or examine any CCTV footage. He also stated that a verbal altercation had taken place between Sazid and accused Pandit about three days prior to the incident, which he claimed to have learnt from others. In cross-examination, DW-2 admitted that he had seen PW-1 Sazid in the locality and that accused Hashim @ Pandit had visited their shop on several occasions earlier. He further admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged incident of 11.06.2020, that his father had closed the shop in the evening, and that he was not present at the relevant time. He denied suggestions that the shop remained open late at night or that the accused had assaulted the complainant party.
31. During final arguments, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt primarily on the strength of the consistent, cogent and trustworthy 24 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 testimonies of the injured witnesses, which are entitled to a higher evidentiary value in law. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, he submitted that the accused persons, namely Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit and Ikramuddin, acted in concert and in furtherance of their common intention, thereby attracting the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was alleged that the manner of assault, the use of a wooden stick (danda), the targeting of vital parts of the body such as the head and face, and the repeated nature of the blows clearly disclosed an intention and knowledge sufficient to constitute an offence Samar punishable under Section 307 IPC, as the acts were allegedly vishal done with such intention or knowledge and under such Digitally signed circumstances that, if death had been caused, the accused would by Samar vishal Date: 2026.01.14 have been guilty of murder. It was further alleged that the 16:22:08 +0530 accused persons extended criminal intimidation to the complainant and his family members by issuing threats to kill them, both at the spot and subsequently at the hospital, thereby causing alarm and fear and fulfilling the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Accordingly, on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution, it was asserted that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rendering them liable to be tried and punished in accordance with law. It was argued that the ocular version of PW-1 Sazid, duly corroborated by PW-4 Rashid, PW-5 Shakila and PW-6 Shahida, clearly establishes the role of both accused in the assault. The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case. As per MLC Ex. PW2/A, injured Sazid suffered a lacerated 25 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 injury, opined to be simple in nature. MLC Ex. PW2/B shows that injured Shahida sustained an incised wound on the right cheek and a laceration on the right side of the forehead, both opined as grievous sharp injuries. MLC Ex. PW2/D records that injured Shakila suffered bleeding from the left ear and nose, opined as grievous. Further, as per MLC Ex. PW2/C, injured Rashid sustained a lacerated injury on the parieto-occipital region of the head, also opined as grievous. Thus, the medical evidence lends complete corroboration to the oral testimonies regarding the manner of assault, the weapon used, and the nature of injuries sustained. It was further argued that the testimonies of the police witnesses collectively establish the prompt receipt of information, immediate shifting of the injured to the hospital, timely recording of the complainant's statement, registration of FIR without delay, arrest of the accused, and completion of investigation in accordance with law. The prosecution, therefore, submitted that the evidence on record proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and warrants their conviction for the offences charged.
32. On the other hand the defence contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The defence witnesses, DW-1 and DW-2, consistently maintained that the shop in question was closed during the relevant time due to lockdown restrictions and that they had no personal knowledge of any quarrel or assault occurring on the night of 11-12 June 2020. Moreover, the defence points out that no independent, neutral, or disinterested witnesses 26 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 were produced to corroborate the prosecution's narrative of the incident. While the prosecution relied on MLCs to establish the occurrence of injuries, there is no conclusive evidence linking those injuries to the accused, and no weapon of offence-- whether a danda or an iron rod--was recovered, despite claims of its use during the assault. The defence has further stated that the alleged discrepancies between the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the witnesses in-court testimonies cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution case. The defence also highlighted the absence of CCTV footage or any other documentary evidence that could independently confirm the incident, despite the presence of nearby cameras, as mentioned by the witnesses. It was submitted that even the alleged threats made by the accused at the hospital remain uncorroborated, raising further questions about the credibility of the witnesses' version. It was also submitted that during the examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused categorically denied any involvement in the incident, and identification may have been influenced by prior acquaintance, enmity, or bias, given that several witnesses admitted prior disputes with the accused. It was also submitted that taken together, these factors reveal that the prosecution evidence is inconsistent, heavily reliant on interested witnesses, and riddled with gaps, creating a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused committed the alleged offences. Therefore, the defence submits that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, warranting their acquittal.
33. After going through the records, I find that the 27 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 testimonies of PW-1 Sazid, PW-4 Rashid, PW-5 Shakila, and PW-6 Shahida are central to the prosecution's case. These witnesses are direct victims of assault who have consistently deposed regarding the sequence of events. They specifically identified the accused, Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit and Ikramuddin @ Ikkam, as the assailants. PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 described how the accused assaulted them and the family members with a danda, part of which was sharpened and detailed the injuries inflicted on themselves. Minor variations--such as exact timing, distance from the shop, or precise dimensions of Samar injuries--are naturally expected in violent events when more vishal witnesses of same incident are examined but these did not undermine the core narrative in the evidence of these witnesses. Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.14 16:22:13 +0530 The evidence of these witnesses corroborate each other. In the case of Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 256, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non- discrepant. 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. But 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
28 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny".
34. In Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the legal position as under:
"The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff.
But it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest."
35. Further, as explained in State v. Saravanan AIR 2009 SC 152, the Court can overlook "minor discrepancies on trivial matters" which do not affect "the core of the prosecution case". In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master AIR 2010 SC 3071, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that "it is the duty of the Court to separate falsehood from the truth, in sifting the evidence". At the same time, the eye-witness testimony must be credible and reliable. It should not be contradicted by other eye- witnesses or by the medical and forensic evidence, if any.
29 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021
36. The medical evidence, recorded in MLCs Ex. PW2/A-D and explained by PW-3, Senior Resident Dr. Prashant Tank, provides independent verification and corroboration of the ocular testimonies of the injured witnesses. PW-1 Sazid suffered simple injuries, whereas PW-4 Rashid, PW-5 Shakila, and PW-6 Shahida suffered grievous injuries involving lacerations and incised wounds caused by sharp-edged implements. The injuries mentioned in their medical documents were consistent with the assault described by the witnesses. The concurrence of eyewitness and medical evidence further strengthens the reliability of the prosecution's case.
37. The police witnesses PW-7 ASI Ashok Kumar, PW-8 ASI Ashwani, and PW-9 HC Rajesh Kumar, testified to the registration of the FIR, site inspection, recording of the complainant's statement, and arrest of the accused. The FIR (Ex. PW7/A), rukka (Ex. PW7/B), and site plan (Ex. PW1/B) were all duly prepared during the investigation. The collection of MLCs and recording of witness statements immediately after the incident ensured minimal scope for fabrication or evidence tampering. There is nothing in the investigation which can be Samar vishal said to be defective or has caused prejudice to the accused Digitally signed by persons. The investigation officer after the investigation filed the Samar vishal Date:
2026.01.14 16:22:17 +0530 chargesheet and after his satisfaction about the occurrence of the incident.
30 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021
38. Regarding the establishment of identity of the accused persons, the injured witnesses had clear opportunity to observe the accused persons. PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 saw the assailant closely during the incident, which took place near their house. It is noteworthy that both the accused and the complainant belong to the same locality and used to reside nearby. Furthermore, during cross-examination, it emerged that the complainant and the accused, were personally acquainted with each other and even studied together. A suggestion was even given by the defence that there was a previous enmity between the complainant and the accused Kaiyum which shows that they knew each other prior to the incident. Given that these witnesses were personally acquainted with him prior to the incident, the question of identification does not arise as a matter of controversy in this case. In Court, accordingly all witnesses correctly identified the accused, further corroborating the narrative.
39. The assault involved deliberate use of a danda with a sharp edge or metal reinforcement, which caused grievous injuries to the victims. The injuries sustained--incised wounds, lacerations, and bleeding--clearly demonstrate that the accused acted with the intention to cause serious bodily harm. The presence of a dangerous weapon and the nature of injuries indicate premeditation, and also reinforce the necessary men-rea
-- reinforcing culpability of the assailant.
31 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021
40. The testimony of injured witnesses, the MLCs, and police records are mutually corroborative. The sequence of events, nature of injuries, and identification of the accused are consistent across all material evidence. Minor discrepancies if any are immaterial--under the principle that consistency in the core facts outweighs trivial variations. The corroboration of all material facts extends to the prompt hospitalisation, medical examination and police response, all of which are in consonance with the sequence described by witnesses.
41. The defence witnesses, DW-1 and DW-2, sought to raise doubts by stating that the shop was closed due to lockdown, and they had no personal knowledge of any altercation. However, Samar they admitted their non-presence at the scene and limited vishal knowledge of events, which weakens their testimony. Further Digitally signed by Samar vishal the alleged prior enmity between PW-1 and the accused, raised Date:
2026.01.14 16:22:21 by the defence, is also insufficient to create reasonable doubt, +0530 particularly when injuries are consistent with assault.
42. The doctrine of reasonable doubt requires consideration of whether, based on the evidence as a whole, there remains any plausible alternative explanation. In the present case, the eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical records and police investigation, is consistent, coherent, and credible. The defence has failed to establish any credible alternative scenario by convincing evidence and is also unable to impeach the credibility of the prosecution witnesses during cross examination.
32 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 Hence, no reasonable doubt survives regarding the involvement of the accused in the assault.
43. Therefore, the totality of facts, circumstances, and evidence on record leads to only one inevitable conclusion, namely, the guilt of the accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit. However, so far as his brother Ikramuddin is concerned, the evidence against him is shaky and unreliable. In the initial complaint of the complainant, Ex. PW-1/A, no specific role has been attributed to accused Ikramuddin except a vague assertion that he reached the spot later and joined his brother; no act of assault is attributed to him therein, and all overt acts are specifically ascribed to accused Ikramuddin. The testimony of the complainant (PW-1) is also in consonance with the contents of Ex. PW-1/A. In contrast, the version of PW-2 materially departs from PW-1, as PW-2 stated that accused Kaiyum left the spot and returned along with accused Ikramuddin, and that both were armed with dandas and assaulted the family. Further, PW-5, the mother of the complainant, described the role of accused Ikramuddin only when prompted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, which further weakens the prosecution case against him. These material contradictions and improvements regarding the role of accused Ikramuddin strike at the root of the prosecution version insofar as he is concerned. In view of these inconsistencies and the absence of a clear and consistent attribution of any overt act to accused Ikramuddin, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt in the present case.
33 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021
44. To finally conclude, there is no manner of doubt that on the date of the incident, the accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit assaulted the injured persons in the present case with a danda which the witnesses states had a sharp edge, although the alleged danda had never been recovered in the present case. The accused Kaiyum has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC along with section 506 IPC, which deals with attempt to commit murder and criminal intimidation. Section 307 IPC contemplates a situation where an act is done with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if death were caused by that act, the offence would amount to murder. The gravamen of the offence thus lies not merely in the nature of injuries caused, but primarily in the intention or knowledge of the accused, coupled with the circumstances in which the act is committed. The provision further prescribes that where hurt is actually caused in the course of such an act, the offender may be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment extending up to ten years, along with fine. Accordingly, the act attributed to the accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit is required to be examined in light of these settled legal principles governing the offence under Section 307 IPC.
45. Regarding section 307 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jage Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, 2015 II AD (S.C.) 523 held as under:-
"12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to 34 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the pro- secution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused. Such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances.
The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature and severity of the blows given etc."
46. On an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has not been able to establish the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge given under section 300 IPC, on the part of the accused to commit murder , as is mandatorily required to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC. It is a settled position of law that mere causing of injury, even if grievous or on a vital part of the body, is not by itself sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC unless the act is accompanied by such intention or knowledge and is done under circumstances which, if death had ensued, would have amounted to murder as defined under section 300 IPC. In the present case, the incident appears to have arisen out of a sudden quarrel 35 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 between persons known to each other, without any prior enmity, premeditation, or preparation on the part of the accused. The weapon allegedly used is a danda, which is not per se a deadly Samar weapon, and there is no material on record to suggest that the vishal accused carried the said weapon with a pre-conceived design to Digitally signed by Samar end the life of the injured of this case. The prosecution has also vishal Date:
2026.01.14 failed to establish repeated or targeted blows aimed in a manner 16:22:29 +0530 clearly suggestive of an intention to cause death. Further, the complainant and the accused Kaiyum new each other, and there may be some prior differences between them also. The assault was made in a public place in a sudden fight over an issue of spitting water by the accused over the complainant. Secondly, only one injury was caused on the head of Rashid which was found to be grievous in nature. But, there is no evidence of the doctor that the injury was dangerous to life. The conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident does not reflect a deliberate attempt to ensure the fatal outcome of the assault. Further, the nature of injuries, though serious, does not conclusively demonstrate that they were inflicted with such force or precision so as to irresistibly lead to the inference that the accused intended to cause death or had the knowledge that his act was so imminently dangerous that it would, in all probability, cause death. The medical evidence, when read conjointly with the ocular testimony, falls short of establishing the mens-rea necessary for an offence under Section 307 IPC. Even while it stands proved that the injured Rashid suffered a head injury, I am unable to draw the inference that the said injury was caused with the specific intention or knowledge requisite for constituting an
36 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 offence under Section 307 IPC. It is trite law that an injury on a vital part of the body, such as the head, though a relevant circumstance, is not by itself determinative of the intention to commit murder. The intention or knowledge contemplated under Section 307 IPC has to be gathered from the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the weapon used, the manner of its use, the number of blows inflicted, the surrounding circumstances of the incident, and the conduct of the accused. In these circumstances, it is not established that the injuries suffered by the complainant and his family members, was caused with an intent to commit his murder.
47. However, the evidence does clearly establish that the accused voluntarily caused hurt and grievous hurt by acts which was likely to cause death at least in the case of injured Rashid and that such act was committed with the knowledge that it could result in serious bodily consequences. The injury on the injured Rashid was caused on the head, therefore, it can be considered that the accused Kaiyum had the requisite knowledge that he is likely by his act can cause the death of Rashid as is required mens-era under section 299 IPC. Therefore it can be gathered from facts and circumstances of the case that the accused Kaiyum was aware that this injury could cause death of the Rashid. Such an act squarely falls within the ambit of Section 308 IPC, which deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The overall conduct of the accused, viewed holistically, does not disclose the mens rea of murder but rather indicates an intention to cause bodily harm, which, though 37 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 serious and potentially life-threatening, falls short of the intention or knowledge required under Section 307 IPC. The act attributed to the accused was undoubtedly dangerous and carried a risk to life, thereby attracting culpability under Section 308 IPC, which covers acts done with the intention or knowledge of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
48. Therefore finally it can be concluded that the intention attributable to the accused, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is one of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, but not with the intention or knowledge necessary to constitute murder. The offence proved on record is more appropriately punishable under Section 308 IPC which is lesser offence for section 307 IPC, and not under Section 307 IPC. On the basis of aforesaid discussion accused Kaiyum therefore, is liable to be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC which is a lesser offence for section 307 IPC and commensurate with the nature of the act and the degree of culpability established on record.
49. As far as the charge under section 506 IPC, is concerned, to bring home a charge under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally threatened the complainant or injured with injury to person, reputation or property, and that such threat was given with the intent to cause alarm to the victim or to compel him to do or omit to do any act which he was not legally bound to do. Mere utterance of words or a casual expression of 38 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 anger, without the necessary intent to cause alarm and without proof that such alarm was in fact caused, does not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. In the present case, the allegations relating to criminal intimidation are vague and general in nature. The prosecution witnesses have made omnibus assertions that the accused extended threats. There is no cogent evidence to show that the accused threatened the injured with any definite or specific harm so as to attract the rigour of Section 506 IPC. Such general and unspecific allegations, bereft of particulars, are insufficient to establish the offence of criminal intimidation. Further, the material on record does not demonstrate that the alleged threats were of such a nature as would ordinarily cause alarm in the mind of a reasonable person. The evidence does not disclose that the injured altered their conduct, refrained from any lawful act, or were compelled to act against their will as a consequence of the alleged threats. There is also no indication that the injured were placed in a state of fear or apprehension of imminent harm due to the purported threats. In the absence of proof of alarm, which is a sine qua non for the offence under Section 506 IPC, the essential ingredient of Samar vishal criminal intimidation remains unfulfilled. The alleged threats, Digitally even if taken at face value, appear to be mere expressions made signed by Samar in the heat of the moment during the course of a quarrel. It is well vishal Date:
2026.01.14 16:22:36 +0530 settled that such casual or empty threats, not intended to be acted upon and not capable of causing alarm, do not fall within the ambit of Section 506 IPC. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC beyond
39 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021 reasonable doubt. The allegations of criminal intimidation being general, unspecific, and unsupported by evidence of alarm, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
50. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons recorded herein-above, it is held that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit committed an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC, whereas it has failed to establish the charge under Section 506 IPC. The accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit is, therefore, convicted for the offence under Section 308 IPC. At the same time, the accused Kaiyum @ Hashim @ Pandit is acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC. The accused Ikramuddin is acquitted of all the charges Digitally signed Samar byDate:Samar vishal against him in this case. vishal 2026.01.14 16:22:41 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Samar Vishal) on 14.01.2024 ASJ-02/South District Saket / New Delhi 14.01.2026 Certified that this judgment contains 40 pages and each page bears my signatures. Samar Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: vishal 2026.01.14 16:22:44 +0530 (Samar Vishal) ASJ-02/South District Saket / New Delhi 14.01.2026 40 State Vs. Kaiyum and Ors FIR no. 227/2020 PS Fatehpur Beri SC No. 212/2021