Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjeev @ Sanjeeva on 11 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIGYA GUPTA, CJM
(EAST DISTRICT), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. : DLET02-004287-2023
CR Cases 2441/2023
STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA
FIR No. 331/2022
P.S. Kalyan Puri
1. FIR No. of the case : 331/2022
2. Date of commission of offence : 22/03/2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 03/05/2023
4. Name of the complainant : Ajay
5. Name of accused & address : Sanjeev @ Sanjeeva
S/o Suresh
R/o 3/233, Trilok Puri,
Delhi, Kalyan Puri,
East, Delhi.
6. Offence charged with : U/s: 324 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of final arguments : 24/12/2025
9. Final Order : Accused is convicted
U/s 324 IPC.
10. Name of the counsels for parties : Sh. Aditya Tripathi,
Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Vinod Kumar, Ld.
LAC for the accused.
STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 1/9
11. Date of Judgment : 11/02/2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 22/03/2022, at 08.30 p.m, at Near Bada Park 3 Block, Trilokpuri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S Kalyanpuri, accused voluntarily caused simple hurt upon the person of the complainant Ajay with a sharp object. Thus accused, as per prosecution, had committed offence punishable U/s 324 IPC. The accused was arrested and released on police bail and charge-sheeted under the said section.
2. Accused appeared before the Court and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, charge U/s 324 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To discharge its onus, prosecution examined 04 witnesses. A brief summary of prosecution evidence is as follows: -
Sr. Witness Witness Remarks No Name no. 1. Ajay PW-1 He deposed that he does not remember
the exact date of incident. The incident occurred in the month March 2022 at evening time and he has mentioned the date in his complaint. On the day of STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 2/9 incident, he was standing in the street located in front of park which is near to his address. He was looking into the account books (Hisab) as he was doing work of Tampoo loading and unloading and he had parked his tampoo nearby.
Accused Sanjeev (present in the court and correctly identified and pointed out by the witness) approached him and asked him to bring cigarette to which he refused. Accused went away to some distance and returned back and hit him with some sharp object on his left thigh. He started bleeding. Accused ran away. By the time his sister also arrived and called the police by dialing at 112 number. After some time police arrived and he was taken to the hospital where he was given medical treatment. He gave his complaint on next day after under going treatment. He had shown the spot of incident to the police and site plan was prepared. He further deposed that as he is a family member and accused involved in many criminal cases, he and his family members are facing continuous threat from the accused. He was duly cross-
examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
2. Ct. PW-2 He deposed that on 22.03.2022, he was Shubham posted as Constable at PS Kalyanpuri. On that day, IO/S1 Kuldeep received a PCR call whereupon, he alongwith SI Kuldeep reached at park, Block-3, Kalyanpuri, Delhi. They came to know that victim was taken into LBS hospital. He alongwith SI Kuldeep reached LBS STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 3/9 Hospital. IO/S1 Kuldeep collected ML.C of Injured Ajay. At the hospital injured Ajay stated that he will give statement later on as he is under severe pain. He alongwith SI Kuldeep returned back to the PS. In the late evening, complainant Ajay came to PS and gave his complaint. IO/S1 Kuldeep got the FIR registered under Section 324 IPC on the basis of complaint given by complainant Ajay. IO also prepared site plan and arrested the accused Sanjeev. He correctly identified the accused present in the court. He was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
3. HC PW-3 He He deposed that during the investigation, Balwant he obtained the opinion of the concerned Yadav doctor on MLC of injured Ajay. After completion of formalities, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court. He was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4. SI SI Kuldeep PW-4 He is the IO of the present case. He Singh deposed that on 22.03.2022, he received a PCR Call vide DD No-104A, dated 22.03.2022 regarding Jhagre me mere bhai ko Chaku mar diya hai".
Accordingly, he reached at the spot.
Where he came to know that the injured Ajay was taken to the LBS Hospital by the public persons. He reached the LBS Hospital and met the injured and collected the MLC of the injured Ajay. At that time, injured Ajay did not give his statement due to being in pain and said that he would be give his statement later on. On STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 4/9 the same day later on injured came to P.S and narrated the incident which was recorded by me. On the basis of complaint, he recorded his Rukka and got the FIR registered through duty officer. Thereafter, he along with the complainant went to the spot where complainant had shown him the spot of incident. On the spot and near about area they could not trace the accused. From there, he returned back to P.S. Thereafter Ct. Subham also joined the investigation in this case, apprehended the accused Sanjeev @ Sanjeeva who is already involved in many cases and brought him at the P.S. He arrested the accused. After some days investigation was marked to other IO Balvant. He correctly identified the accused present in the court. He was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4. Prosecution has also relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. Items Exhibits No. 1 Complaint of complainant Ex. PW1/A 2 Site plan Ex. PW1/B 3 Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW2/A
Following documents were admitted by the accused vide his statement recorded U/s 294 STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 5/9 Cr.P.C
1. FIR No. 331/22 & Certificate U/s 65(B) IEA Ex. AD-1 (colly).
2. DD No. 104A dated 22/03/2022 Ex. AD-2
3. MLC No. 1522/22 Ex. AD-3
4. MLC No. 1522/22 Ex. AD-4
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
6. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C and he stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He did not commit any offence. He had not inflicted any injury upon the complainant. Police officials have registered a false and fabricated case on him and he is innocent. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
7. I have heard final arguments and have perused the record.
8. The accused herein has stood trial U/s 324 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that accused had caused simple injuries on the person of complainant Ajay with a sharp object on the alleged date, time and place.
9. To prove the said allegations, complainant Ajay stepped into the witness box as PW1 and reiterated the aforesaid facts before the court. He deposed that on the date of the incident, while he was standing in the street and looking into his account books, the STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 6/9 accused Sanjeev approached him and asked him to bring a cigarette but the complainant refused to bring him a cigarette. Thereafter, the accused went away only to return back and hit the complainant with some sharp object. The accused hit the complainant on his left thigh due to which the complainant started bleeding. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot. The complainant's sister called the police and the complainant was taken to hospital for medical treatment. The said testimony of the complainant is in line with his initial complaint, Ex. PW1/A and is also corroborated by the MLC Ex. AD-3 & AD-4. There is no contradiction or improvement in the testimony of the complainant/PW1. The said incident was immediately reported to the police and in that regard GD No. 0104A dated 22/03/2022 was recorded whereafter, the statement of the complainant was promptly recorded and there is no delay in the registration of FIR.
10. As per the MLC, the victim had suffered simple injury. The medical evidence in the form of MLC Ex. AD-3 and Ex. AD-4 shows that the complainant sustained an incised wound (I/W) over the left thigh measuring approximately 3 cm × 0.5 cm. The nature of the injury has been opined as simple. An incised wound is typi- cally caused by a sharp-edged object, and therefore the medical findings sufficiently corroborate the ocular testimony of PW-1 that he was struck with a sharp object by the accused.
STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 7/9
11. The complainant/victim has duly identified the accused as a person who had attacked him on the alleged date, time and place. His testimony is cogent, credible and inspires confidence. It has stood the test of cross-examination also. Nothing has come dur- ing the cross-examination of the said witness to disbelieve the facts stated by him.
12. A perusal of the cross examination of PW1, in fact, shows that the presence of the accused at the spot at the time of the incident in question is not disputed. The same is evident from the suggestion put by the Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that on the date of the incident, the vehicle of the complainant had hit the accused. Pertinently, the suggestion was denied by the complainant. The suggestion in itself is indicative of an admission of the fact that some incident had occurred at the spot on the alleged date. Another defence raised on behalf of the accused is that the complainant had a previous enmity with him.
13. It is crucial to note that no defence evidence has been brought on record by the accused in support of the defence so raised. The accused has not led any defence evidence. Furthermore, no such submission was made by the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
14. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the evidence led by the complainant is duly corroborated by the MLC. It does not STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 8/9 appeal to reason that a victim would falsely implicate an innocent person while allowing the actual perpetrator to escape liability. In these circumstances, the defence put forth by the accused appears to be an afterthought devised to evade responsibility.
15. In the present matter, the medical findings corroborate the nature of injury as described by PW-1, and thus non-recovery of the weapon does not weaken the prosecution case. The evidence of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy. It is supported by medical records. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. The prosecution has successfully proved that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW-1 by means of a sharp object. The ingredients of Section 324 IPC are fully satisfied.
16. Thus, considering the evidence brought on record, spe- cially the testimony of PW-1 and the above discussion it is proved that the accused had caused injury to the complainant with a sharp object and the accused is accordingly convicted for the offence made punishable U/s 324 IPC. Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (PRIGYA GUPTA)
On 11/02/2026 CJM (EAST DISTRICT)
KKD COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA FIR NO. 331/2022 P.S. Kalyan Puri Page no. 9/9