Delhi District Court
State vs Umesh Kumar Shah Etc on 29 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-000138-2012
CIS No. 60246/2016
State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors
FIR No. 174/2011
PS. Ranhola
U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 19.08.2011
2) The name of the complainant : Manoj Kumar S/o Lal Mohan Mehta
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1. Umesh Kumar Shah S/o Nathni Pal Shah, R/o H.no. 48, Jai Vihar, Phase I, Bani Camp, Baprola, Delhi (Expired)
2. Jitender S/o Umesh Kumar, R/o H.no. 48, Jai Vihar, Phase I, Near Bani Camp, Baprola, Delhi
3. Suman Kumar S/o Nathni Shah, R/o H.no. 48, Jai Vihar, Phase I, Near Bani Camp, Baprola, Delhi
4. Hullash Shah S/o Hiraman Shah, R/o Village Dudhela, P.O. and PS Dauad Pur, Distt. Chhapra, Bihar.
4) Offence complained of : U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 6) Final order : Convicted 7) The date of such order : 29.01.2026 Date of Institution : 22.08.2012
State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 1/11 Final Arguments heard on : 09.01.2026 Judgment reserved on : 29.01.2026 Judgment announced on : 29.01.2026 JUDGMENT
1) The case of the prosecution against the accused persons are that on 19.08.2011 at about 08:40 PM at Factory No.7A, Harphool Vihar near New Bridge, Baprola Nala, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ranhola, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple hurt to complainant Sh. Manoj Kumar and grievous hurt to Sh. Virender Kumar.
It is further the case of the prosecution that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Sh. Virender Kumar from proceeding in a direction in which he has a right to proceed.
It is further the case of the prosecution that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening to kill Virender Kumar.
2) After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied to all accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed against all the accused under Section 323/325/341/506/34 IPC to which all accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its version, prosecution has examined eight witnesses. All accused admitted as per section 294 Cr.PC, FIR no. 174/11 is Ex. A1 and DD no. 40A dated 19.08.2011 is Ex. A2. The documents were admitted and the concerned witnesses were dropped.
4) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded separately wherein accused persons claimed to be innocent and State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 2/11 denied the allegations against them. All accused persons opted not to lead DE.
5) I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused persons. I have also perused the record carefully.
6) The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched upon, in brief, as follows:-
6.1) PW-1 Sh. Manoj Kumar Mehto deposed that PW1 was running shoe factory at aforementioned address. It is further stated that one Virender had joined his factory as employee in the year of 2011. It is further stated that at the time of joining Virender had informed PW1 previously he was working at Jai Vihar in the factory of one Umesh and he also informed PW1 that Umesh had not given his three to four month's salary total amounting Rs. 8.000/- to Rs.9,000/-. It is further stated that on 19.08.2011 Virender made a call to Umesh and demanding his balance amount. It is further stated that upon which the hot talk take place between them. It is further stated that after sometime at about 8.30 pm accused Umesh, Hullas, Jitender and Suman alongwith their associates came to his factory and entered inside his factory while abusing. It is further stated that accused Jitender and Hullas were carrying wooden stick in their hands. It is further stated that all the accused persons started beating Virender who was present inside his factory. It is further stated that Jitender had caught hold Virender and the remaining accused persons gave mercilessly beatings to him. It is further stated that PW1 tried to save Virender. Upon which all the accused persons started beating me mercilessly. It is further stated that accused Umesh had also threatened to kill Virender. It is further stated that somehow PW1 managed to came outside the factory and was making a PCR call. It is further stated that upon which all the accused persons again started beating PW1. His worn gold chain and his wrist watch got missing. PW1 had sustained injury on his mouth, neck, head and other part of body. Accused Virender had sustained State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 3/11 injury upon his head, leg and other part of body and he was bleeded. The accused persons fled away from the spot. PCR reached at the spot and took them to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where they were medically treated. PW1 made complaint regarding the same to the police. The same is Ex. PWI/A. PW1 had shown the place of occurrence to the police. During investigation in accused person namely Suman, Umesh and Jitender were arrested upon his identification vide arrest memo Ex. PWI/B to Ex. PW1/D. All arrest memos of accused. Their personal search were also conducted vide personal search memos Ex. PWI/E to Ex. PWI/G. All personal search memos of accused.
Accused Umesh had also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. wooden stick from his house situated in Jai Vihar. Baprola. Delhi and the same was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW I/H. 6.2) PW-2 Harinder deposed that PW2 is permanent resident of the above said address and run a small business to earn his living. It is further stated that at the time of incident i.e. 19.08.2011, PW2 was running a shop at 7A, Harphool Vihar. It is further stated that on that day at about 08.30 pm, PW2 was present at his said shop. It is further stated that on that day PW2 heard some voices which were coming out of his shop but PW2 was busy with some work, PW2 did not give any attention to the same. It is further stated that after the police officials arrived at the spot, PW2 came out and found that police was taking Virender alongwith them in the PCR Van. It is further stated that PW2 does not know anything else about this case. It is further stated that thereafter, Ld APP for the State seeks permission from the court to cross- examine the witness. In examination witness admited that there was one factory of shoe which was adjacent to my shop. PW2 denied the suggestion that on the date of incident, PW2 was standing outside his shop. PW2 denied the suggestion that police inquired from PW2 about the incident and his statement was recorded vide Mark-2/A. PW2 denied the suggestion that on State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 4/11 the date of incident, 4 male persons came and stood near to his shop and started abusing in filthy language and out of them, one person was holding one danda in his hand and after hearing the said abuses, the owner of the said factory namely Manoj along-with his labour came out of the factory. (confronted with the previous statement made to the police vide Mark-2/A from point A to A1 where it is so recorded). PW2 denied the suggestion that out of the said four boys, one boy who was holding danda in his hand, caught hold of Virender and gave him beatings with the help of said danda and when Virender managed to get free himself from the clutches of the said boy and tried to flee away from the spot, the remaining two boys stopped his way and again caught hold of him and all the boys gave him beatings with the help of kicks and fist blows and when Manoj tried to rescure Virender from the clutches of the said boys, the said boys also gave beatings to Manoj. (confronted with the previous statement made to the police vide Mark-2/A from point B to B1 where it is so recorded). PW2 denied the suggestion that Manoj made a 100 no. call in his presence and the said boys left the spot and also raised threats to him of dire consequences. (confronted with the previous statement made to the police vide Mark-2/A from point C to C1 where it is so recorded). PW2 denied the suggestion that both Manoj and Virender were removed by the police officials and PW2 came to know the names of the other two boys as Umesh who was holding the said danda in his hand and accused Jitender who held Virender from behind and the remaining accused persons as Suman and Hullash who restrained the way of Virender and PW2 requested the IO that proper legal action shall be taken against them. (confronted with the previous statement made to the police vide Mark-2/A from point D to D1 where it is so recorded).
6.3) PW-3 HC Ishwar Singh deposed that on 19.08.11, PW3 was posted at PS Ranhola as a Constable. It is further stated that on that day, on receiving State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 5/11 DD No. 40A, PW3 alongwith IO went to Harphool Vihar, Ganda Nala, Baprola, Delhi. It is further stated that on reaching there, they met with complainant Manoj Kumar. It is further stated that complainant's statement was recorded by IO. It is further stated that PW3 alongwith tehrir went to PS for registration of FIR. It is further stated that after registration of FIR PW3 alongwith copy of FIR and original tehrir returned to the spot and handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR to IO. It is further stated that thereafter, on 24.08.2011, PW3 alongwith IO and complainant Manoj Kumar went to H NO. 48, Jai Vihar, Baprola, Delhi. It is further stated that in abovementioned house, accused Suman Kumar, Umesh Kumar and Jitender were present. It is further stated that on the pointing out of accused Umesh, one bamboo stick was recovered. It is further stated that pointing out memo is already Ex. PW1/H. It is further stated that the weapon of offence i.e. bamboo stick was put in a white cloth and sealed with the seal of DS. It is further stated that accused Suman Kumar, Umesh Kumar and Jitender were arrested vide memo already Ex. PW1/B, PW1/C and PW1/D. It is further stated that personal search of accused Jitender, Umesh and Suman Kumar was conducted in his presence which is already Ex. PW1/G, PW1/F and PW1/E. It is further stated that disclosure statement of accused Umesh Kumar was recorded vide memo Ex. PW3/A. It is further stated that accused persons were medically examined and thereafter were put in lockup. It is further stated that accused persons namely Suman Kumar and Jitender are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). Accused Umesh Kumar has already expired. 6.4) PW-4 Retd. SI Balraj deposed that on 19.08.11, PW4 was posted at PS Ranhola as a Head Constable. It is further stated that on that day, PW4 received DD No. 40A, vide PW4 was informed about the present incident. It is further stated that thereafter PW4 along with Ct. Ishwar Singh reached the spot i.e. Harphool Vihar, Ganda Nala, Baprola, Delhi. It is further stated that State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 6/11 on reaching there, they got to know that the injured persons were already taken to SGM Hospital. It is further stated that thereafter, they reached the hospital and collected the MLCs of the victims Manoj Kumar and Virender and got to know that the victim Manoj Kumar had already left the hospital after treatment and met the victim Virender who refused to give his statement in the hospital. It is further stated that thereafter, on 24.08.2011, PW4 and Ct. Ishwar reached at the spot and PW4 recorded the statement of victim Manoj Kumar and prepared the tehrir which is already Ex. PW1/A and sent Ct. Ishwar alongwith tehrir to PS for registration of FIR. It is further stated that after registration of FIR he alongwith copy of FIR and original tehrir returned to the spot and handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR to PW4. It is further stated that thereafter, PW4 alongwith Ct. Ishwar and complainant Manoj Kumar went to H NO. 48, Jai Vihar, Baprola, Delhi. In above mentioned house, accused Suman Kumar, Umesh Kumar and Jitender were present. On the pointing out of accused Umesh, one bamboo stick was recovered. Pointing out memo is already Ex. PW1/H. The weapon of offence i.e. bamboo stick was put in a white cloth and sealed with the seal of DS. Accused Suman Kumar, Umesh Kumar and Jitender were arrested vide memo already Ex. PW1/B, PW1/C and PW1/D. Personal search of accused Jitender, Umesh and Suman Kumar was conducted in his presence which is already Ex. PW1/G, PW1/F and PW1/E. Disclosure statement of accused Umesh Kumar was recorded vide memo already Ex. PW3/A. Accused persons were medically examined and thereafter were put in lockup. Accused person Jitender is present in the court today (witness correctly identified accused Jitender). Accused Umesh Kumar has already expired. PW4 prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Manoj Kumar which is Ex. PW4/A. During investigation PW4 obtained final opinion of Doctor on the MLC of victim Virender and the doctor opined the nature of injury as grievous and State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 7/11 therefore PW4 added section 325 of IPC in the present case. 6.5) PW-5 SI Balwan Singh deposed that on 18.10.2012, PW5 was posted at PS Ranhola, Delhi as HC and the investigation was market to PW5 and during investigation on the very same day accused Hullash Shah came to PS as PW5 called him and on his arrival at about 01:00 PM, PW5 made a formal arrest of the accused Vide memo Ex. PW-5/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-5/B and he furnished the bond and same are accepted Ex. PW-5/C and recorded his discloure statement Ex. PW-5/D and he join the investigation. It is further stated that PW5 prepared chargesheet in the present matter and submitted before the court and statement of witness were recorded in the present matter.
6.6) PW-6 HC Jagdish Parsad deposed that PW6 was posted as HC at PS Ranhola, Delhi and investigation of the case was marked to PW6 and PW6 perused the case file but in the meantime got transferred to another IO and PW6 handed the case file was handed to MHC (R ).
6.7) PW-7 Sh. Raman Kumar deposed that PW7 currently posted at SGM hospital, as record clerk and PW7 have appeared before this Hon'ble Court today in pursuance summons issued in the name of Dr. Manoj Dhingra to depose on his behalf to prove his signature and handwriting on the MLC No. 12495 and 12653. PW7 has been deputed by Dy. MS, SGM Hospital, Delhi. It is further stated that the said report is now Ex. PW7/A & Ex. PW-7/B bearing the signature of Dr. Manoj Dhingra at point A on both the MLCs. It is further stated that PW7 was well acquainted with the signature and hand writing of Dr. Manoj Dhingra as PW7 have seen him writing and signing. 6.8) PW-8 Dr. M. Das MD DDU Hospital deposed that on 19.08.2011 PW8 was posted at SGM hospital as CMO. It is further stated that on that day at around 11:59 PM, patient Manoj brought by PCR and examined vide MLC 12495 which has been prepared by PW8 and which is already Ex. PW-7/A. It State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 8/11 is further stated that as per MLC PW8 have given opinion as Simple in nature. It is further stated that on the same day, at around 10:15 PM, PW8 also examined the another patient namley Virender vide MLC 12653 which is aleady Ex. PW-7/B and referred to SR surgery.
7. I have heard the submission of the parties and have perused the records carefully.
8. Indian Penal Code provides that :
Section 323 - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 325 - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 341- hoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Section 506 - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc - and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
9. In the present case, tesminony of PW1 is categorical with regard to attack by accused persons. PW1 has correctly identified all the accused persons. PW1 has also stated the motive of such attack.
10. PW2 has turned hostile in the present case. PW2 however has State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 9/11 confirmed about happening of the incident on 19.08.2011. PW2 has also confirmed the factum of Virender being sent alongwith PCR Van. PW2 has been cross examined regarding lending of money by Umesh to Virender. No proof has been filed by accused in this regard in their defence evidence.
11. PW3 has stated that one bamboo stick was recovered on pointing out of accused Umesh. PW4 was the IO in the present case. PW4 was cross examined regarding no eye witness at this point of incident. PW4 was also cross examined regarding no recovery of CCTV footage. PW4 was also cross examined regarding non citing of independent witness during recovery of danda. It is to be noted that CCTV footage can only be recovered if there was such CCTV camera installed at the spot. It is not the case of the accused that prosecution is deliberately hiding the CCTV footage. Had there been any CCTV footage then same could have been filed by the accused. It is not essential to cite public witness in each and every case to sustain conviction. In the present case the testimony of PW1 who is complainant and victim in the present case is categorical.
12. The testimony of PW1 is also supported by MLCs of manoj and Virender. As per the MLC of Sh. Manoj it is stated that nature of injury is simple. As per the MLC of Sh. Virender it is clearly stated that nature of injury is grievous. X-ray report of Sh. Virender is also filed alongwith the chargesheet. PW Virender could not be examined in the present case as he could not be traced. The medical report of PW Virender i.e. MLC and x-ray report clearly shows grievous hurt. The testimony of PW7 and PW8 qua medical reports are unblemished.
13. No explanation has been furnished by accused persons U/s 313 of State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 10/11 CrPC. No defence evidence has been led by accused persons. The whole case of accused perons rest upon lacunae to be found in the case of prosecution. Perusal of the testimonies and medical documents clearly point towards the guilt of accused persons. Ex. PW1/H i.e. document qua recovery of danda has also become relevant U/s 27 of Evidence Act.
14. In conclusion, the accused Jitender, Suman Kumar and Hulhas Shah stand convicted of charged offences U/s 323/325/341/506/34 of IPC.
ANKIT KARAN DigitallySINGH
signed by ANKIT KARAN
SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:32:02 +0530
Announced in the open court (ANKIT KARAN SINGH)
on 29.01.2026 JMIC-08,West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Umesh Kumar Shah & Ors FIR No. 174/11 U/s. 323/325/341/506/34 IPC 11/11