Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul on 28 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN-1: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
SC : 27494/2016
FIR No. : 471/2015
PS : Subzi Mandi
U/s : 323/304/452 IPC
State
Versus
RAHUL
S/o of Santosh
R/o H.No. 2897, Gali Peepal Wali,
Aryapura, Subzi Mandi,
Delhi. .....Accused
Date of committal : 18.12.2015
Date on which order reserved : 05.08.2025
Date on which order pronounced : 28.08.2025
Final Order : CONVICTED U/S 323 IPC
J U D G M E N T :-
1. Brief facts of the case are that DD No. 3A dated 21.09.2015 regarding quarrel was received in the PS which was marked to HC Suresh in the meanwhile HC Nagender reached at the spot. Subsequently another DD No. 9A was recorded pursuant to which DD No. 3 A was handed over to SI Yogender SC 27494 of 2016 page no.1 of 26 who along with Ct. Kishan Kumar went to Hindu Rao hospital and obtained the MLC of Dharmesh on which the doctor had opined 'Brought Dead'. IO reached at the spot and recorded the statement of Deepa who stated that she is a housewife and on the intervening night of 20-21.09.2015 she along with her husband and children were present in their house, at around 11:45 pm. Rahul who is the resident no H. No. 2897 in a drunken condition was hurling abuses and banging their gate and stated "tumne meri maa ko nal se pani pehle nhi bharne diya aaj me tumhe btata hun". The persons from the neighborhood also came out because of the noise. Some portion of the gate was also broken. Her brother-in-law Rakesh also tried to intervene and pacify the accused, however he started mis-behaving with him as well. In order to pacify they opened the door, Rahul caught hold of his husband's hand and pulled him out. Rahul started giving leg and fist blows on the chest and the stomach. PCR officials came at the spot and asked them to reach PS. She along with her husband went to PS on their scooter. The moment she reached PS her husband became unwell, she made her sit on a bench in the park, the brother-in-law took him to Hindu Rao hospital where he was declared brought dead. On the basis of her statement FIR SC 27494 of 2016 page no.2 of 26 bearing No. 471/2015 u/s 323/304/452 IPC was registered at PS Subzi Mandi.
2. During the course of investigation statement of witnesses was recorded. Accused was arrested, CCTV of the incident was obtained, post mortem of the deceased was got conducted. Case property was sent to FSL. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Subsequently on receipt of result from FSL supplementary charge-sheet along with final opinion was filed.
3. Accused was produced from judicial custody before the Ld. Magistrate and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. since offence u/s 304 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions the case was committed to this court.
4. Vide order dated 09.02.2016 charge u/s 304/323/452 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC 27494 of 2016 page no.3 of 26
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses.
6. PW-1 ASI Ravinder is the Duty officer who recorded the FIR, the same was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. He made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW1/B and also gave certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/C.
7. PW-2 is Om Prakash who stated that on the intervening night of 20-21.09.2015 at about 12:00am. he along his mother were returning from her sister's house, when they reached Peepal wali gali they saw accused Rahul in a drunken condition. When he entered the gali accused Rahul caught hold of his collar and was trying to hit him. However, his mother and the mother of the accused got him released. While he was proceedings towards his house he heard accused saying "aaj isko (Dharmesh) nahi chhorunga". Accused started kicking the door of the house of the deceased. When the deceased opened the door, accused pulled him out and gave him leg and fist blows. The residents tried to pacify the matter, the brother of deceased who was sleeping on the terrace came down to save the deceased. Accused SC 27494 of 2016 page no.4 of 26 manhandled the brother as well. The witness was declared hostile and stated that accused had entered the house of deceased and also gave beatings to the wife of deceased. He also stated that deceased had taken his wife Deepa on scooter to police station.
8. PW-3 is HC Suresh who stated that on intervening night of 20-21.09.2015 he was posted at Subzi Mandi, on that day at around 12:05 am DD no. 3 A, Ex. PW3/A regarding quarrel was received. He along with HC Nagender reached at the spot where PCR officials were present. On inquiry he came to know that there was quarrel between Dharmesh and Rahul. He came back to PS. PCR officials had brought Rahul to PS Subzi Mandi. In the meantime Dharmesh along with his wife reached at police station and were sitting in the park inside the police station. Dharmesh was not feeling well he was taken to Hindu Rao hospital.
9. PW-4 is Anurag who stated that in the intervening night of 20-21.09.2015 accused Rahul had given beatings to Dharmesh. He was sleeping in his house and after hearing the noise he came SC 27494 of 2016 page no.5 of 26 out and saw that accused was giving 2-3 kick blows on the door of the house. His neighbour Om Prakash was also present. Rahul slapped Om Prakash 2-3 times. As soon as Dharmesh opened the door accused caught hold of Dharmesh collar and pulled him out and gave him fist and leg blows. In the meantime brother of Dharmesh also came and tried to pacify the matter. After 15-20 minutes police reached at the spot and took accused to police station. Dharmesh along with other neighbours also reached the police station, where he complained of chest pain and became unconscious. He was taken to Hindu Rao hospital where he was declared brought dead. He had a CCTV Camera out of which 3 cameras were facing the gali. On 23.09.2015 IO seized the hard disc., prior to that he had prepared the CD and handed over the same to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. The hard disc was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/B. On 11.12.2015 IO seized the DVR of his CCTV system vide memo Ex. PW4/C. The CD was exhibited as Ex. P1. Hard disc as P5/1. DVR as Ex. PW4/P2.
10. PW-5 is Ct. Pawan who stated that on 23.09.2015 he along with IO SI Yogender Kumar visited the house No. 289 where IO SC 27494 of 2016 page no.6 of 26 took the CD of CCTV footage and also seized the hard disc.vide memo Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B.
11. PW-6 HC Gulzar Hussain stated that on 14.10.2015 he received sealed viscera of deceased in a wooden box duly sealed with the seal of FM HRH and sample seal and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC no. 104/15/21 which is Ex. PW6/A. The acknowledgment receipt Ex. PW6/B was handed over to MHC(R).
12. PW-7 Ct. Dinesh stated that on 13.10.2015 he was posted at PS Subzi Mandi, he received from MHC® sealed exhibit i.e. plastic container containing the heart of deceased duly sealed with the seal of FM HRH and sample seal and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC no. 103/15/21 which is Ex. PW7/A. The acknowledgment was handed over to MHC(R).
13. PW-8 HC Binder Singh stated that on the day of incident he was on PCR duty at about midnight he received a call from control room regarding quarrel, he immediately reached the spot and found that quarrel was over. He asked Dharmesh whether he SC 27494 of 2016 page no.7 of 26 intends to go to hospital for his medical examination, he refused. In the meantime HC Suresh reached at the spot. HC Suresh directed him to take accused to police station in PCR van.
14. PW-9 is HC Nagender Singh whose testimony is similar to the testimony of PW-3, accompanied PW-3 to the spot.
15. PW-10 is HC Raj Kumar was present with the IO at the time when the post mortem of the deceased was conducted. After post mortem doctor handed over sealed viscera and plastic box duly sealed which was seized by the IO vide Ex. PW10/A.
16. PW-11 SI Pawan Kumar was posted at CPCR and had received 3 PCR calls on the intervening night of 20-21.09.2015 from mobile number 9711195811. The said information was transferred to PCR Van. The attested copy of PCR form was exhibited as Ex.PW11/A to C. The certificate u/s 65 B was exhibited as Ex. PW11/D.
17. PW-12 is Insp. Mahesh Kumar who took rough notes and measurements at the instance of the wife of deceased and IO and SC 27494 of 2016 page no.8 of 26 prepared a scaled site plan and handed over the same to the IO. The Site plan was exhibited as Ex. PW12/A.
18. PW-13 is Dr. Rakesh Solanki who examined Deepa the wife of deceased and Om Prakash and prepared their MLC Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/B. He also identified the signature of Dr. Simple Mohan who prepared the MLC of deceased and Rakesh. The MLC were exhibited as Ex. PW13/C and Ex. PW13/D.
19. PW-14 is Rakesh brother of deceased and has deposed that after hearing some noise he saw from his window that accused Rahul was abusing his brother and threatening him to come out. Accused was repeatedly kicking the door and had beaten Om Prakash. It is stated that accused Rahul entered the house and dragged his brother from the room and gave beating to him. In the meantime he also reached the spot in order to save his brother. Accused Rahul gave him beatings when his Bhabhi tried to save deceased she was also given beatings. In the incident his vest was torn, which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/A. The accused was arrested vide arrest and personal SC 27494 of 2016 page no.9 of 26 search memo Ex. PW14/B and C. he identified the body of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW14/D.
20. PW-15 is Deepa complainant of the case who has deposed on the same lines as stated in her complaint. The complaint is Ex PW15/A. The police has seized the pieces of broken door vide memo Ex. PW15/B and at her instance site plan Ex. PW15/C was prepared.
21. PW-16 is Ct. Krishan Kumar who along with IO SI Yogender Singh on receipt of DD no. 9 A had gone to Hindu Rao hospital where they came to know that Dharmesh was declared brought dead. The body was sent to Mortuary. They went to spot met the complainant who made her complaint. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him to get the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO. At the instance of brother of deceased accused was arrested. Accused made disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW16/A. Crime team inspected the spot. The broken pieces of the door was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW15/B. IO took into possession the torn SC 27494 of 2016 page no.10 of 26 vest vide memo Ex. PW14/A. The pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused which was exhibited as Ex. PW16/B. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He along with Ct. Raj Kumar went to the mortuary Hindu Rao hospital where the post mortem of the deceased was conducted and the body was handed over to the family member. The doctor had given the viscera and other exhibits. Same was seized by the IO.
22. PW-17 is ASI Devender who was the MHCM posted in PS Subzi Mandi, on 21.09.2015 IO deposited two sealed exhibits containing vest and piece of door. He also deposited one sealed viscera box and one sealed box containing heart of the deceased. He made entry at serial no. 1985. On 23.09.2015 IO deposited sealed pullanda containing hard disc. and CD. Entry in this regard was made at serial no. 1994. On 11.12.2015 IO again deposited one pullanda containing DVR. Entry in this regard was made at serial no. 2105. On 19.01.2016 one extra hard disc. was deposited, entry in this regard was made at serial no. 1620. The relevant entries were exhibited as Ex. PW17/A. On 13.10.2015 on the directions of the IO the sealed box containing SC 27494 of 2016 page no.11 of 26 heart was handed over to Ct. Dinesh for depositing the same with Hindu Rao hospital for Histopathological examination. The copy of RC was exhibited as Ex. PW17/B. On 14.10.2015 on the directions of the IO the sealed viscera box was handed over to Ct. Gulzar for depositing the same with the FSL. The copy of RC was exhibited as Ex. PW17/C. On 20.01.2016 on the directions of the IO the sealed DVR extra hard disc., hard disc. was handed over to Ct. Gulzar for depositing the same with the FSL. The copy of RC was exhibited as Ex. PW17/E.
23. PW-18 is Dr. Ashish Tyagi who conducted the post mortem and gave his report Ex.PW18/A.
24. PW-19 is Dr. Sompal Singh and PW-20 Dr. Ruchi Rathore are the specialists posted in the department of pathology and conducted the Histopathalogical examination of the Heart of deceased and gave their report which was exhibited as Ex. PW19/A.
25. PW-21 is Dr. Neha Gupta who gave the final opinion regarding cause of death i.e. "Coronary Artery disease and its sequelae". The same was exhibited as Ex. PW21/A. SC 27494 of 2016 page no.12 of 26
26. PW-22 is Prem Pal Singh who deposited the wooden box in the FSL containing exhibits and gave his report Ex. PW22/A.
27. PW-23 SI Yogender is the IO of the case and has deposed about with the investigation carried out by him. He exhibited the rukka as Ex. PW23/A, the inquest proceedings as Ex. PW23/B.
28. The accused admitted the genuineness of FSL report prepared by Sh. Vivek Kumar under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on dated 29.08.2022. PE was closed on 21.05.2024.
29. Statement of accused was recorded on 05.11.2024. Accused opted to lead evidence in defence and examined his mother Amita as DW-1. DE was closed on 24.01.2025.
30. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that in the present case accused had given 4-5 blows on the chest of the deceased because of which he expired and thus clearly the accused is liable to be convicted u/s 304 IPC. He submits that if the CCTV footage is seen, it clearly shows how furious the accused was. He submits that in the CCTV footage he is roaming in the street and SC 27494 of 2016 page no.13 of 26 kicks the door of the house of deceased. It is submitted by him that even the mother of accused had tried to dissuade him but was unable to prevent as the accused was hell bent in giving beatings to the deceased. It is thus submitted that the attending circumstance clearly shows the knowledge of the accused and as such accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 304/323/452 IPC.
31. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that in this case the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304 IPC as prosecution has been unable to prove requisite knowledge. It is submitted that as per the histopathological report the cause of death was "Transmural myocardial infraction" and as per the subsequent opinion the cause of death was "Coronary artery disease with its sequelae"
which clearly indicates that the death occurred on account of heart disease and accused had no intention or knowledge. It is submitted that as per the post mortem there are no external injuries except injury on the right hand. It is It is argued that even if for the sake of arguments, the case of prosecution is taken as a gospel truth, there is is no fracture of rib or any other injury SC 27494 of 2016 page no.14 of 26 which could suggest that myocardial infarction had taken place on account of fist blow on the chest.
32. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the record.
33. The accused was also charged for the offence punishable u./s 452 IPC. The relevant section is reproduced as under:-
"House tresspass after preparation for hurt, assault of wrongful restraint- whoever commits house-tresspass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".
34. House tress pass has been defined u/s 442 IPC which is reproduced as under:-
"Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house-trespass".
35. In order to commit the offence of House Tress pass, the offender needs to enter the building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling. PW-15 in her cross examination admitted that accused never entered their house. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced as under:-
SC 27494 of 2016 page no.15 of 26 "It is correct that accused had not entered inside my house on the day of incident".
36. Once PW-15 admits that accused had never entered the house no house tress pass can be said to have been committed. Hence accused is liable to be acquitted of the said offence.
37. It is not even the case of prosecution that accused had any intention to commit murder as the charge-sheet was filed u/s 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
38. The mere factor that a human being has died is not sufficient to attribute Section 299 IPC unless the ingredients stands satisfied. The act of causing death always cannot amount to culpable homicide reference can be made to the situation, as mentioned in Section 76 to 81 and Section 100 to 103 IPC. In the scheme of IPC culpable homicide is genus and murder is specie. All murder are culpable homicide but vice-versa does not hold true.
39. The offence of culpable homicide presupposes an intention or knowledge of likelihood of causing death. In the SC 27494 of 2016 page no.16 of 26 absence of intention or knowledge the offence committed may fall in the category of simple hurt or grievous hurt.
40. Section 304 IPC provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The applicability of Section 304 IPC was discussed in Loknath Behera Vs. State 1984 Crl LJ 833 wherein it was inter-alia held as under:-
"Section 304 Part I applies to a case where the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The second part thereof applies when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
5. The mental element in culpable homicide is one of intention or knowledge.... Guilty intention or knowledge is essential and if this does not exit, the killing of a man may not amount to culpable homicide.
6....Intention is proved by or inferred from the acts of the accused and the circumstances of the case.
7....Where death is caused the degree of guilt of the offender depends on the intention or knowledge with which he did the act and the offences of which he may be convicted are murder culpable homicide not amounting to murder, grievance hurt of hurt with variations on account of the weapon or the mean used, the seat of assault, the provocation and so forth.
8.... Section 299 of the Code defining "culpable homicide" is a strong word and imports a certainity and not merely a probability. If a man commits an act and the consequences beyond his purpose result, it is for the court to determine how far he can be held to have the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause the actual result.
9. In the absence of intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be the offence of causing grievous hurt or simple hurt, as the case may be. When injuries have been followed by death and the question is what offence has been committed, it is not to be concluded by any backward reasoning as to the presumable intention of SC 27494 of 2016 page no.17 of 26 knowledge from the mere fact that the injury caused did, in fact, result in death. What has to be seen is what degree of injury the accused actually intended or what he knew as to the probable consequences of such injury.
10. .... when the act that he did in the process of causing hurt is such as any person of ordinary prudence knows is likely to cause grievous hurt, he may be taken to have intended to cause grievous hurt or to have contemplated that grievous hurt was likely to occur if the act is such that nothing more than simple hurt can reasonably be thought likely to ensue from it, although grievous hurt may unexpectedly have ensued, the offender can be convicted of simple hurt only.
11...
12..... Merely because death has been caused, intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant is not to be assumed.... The degree of guilt of the appellant is not to be extended beyond what he had intended or knew to be probable consequence of his act. In the absence of his mental element of intention or knowledge, it can reasonably and legally be held that by dealing a blow on the chest of the deceased, the appellant had intended to cause and had voluntarily caused grievous hurt as there was fracture of a rib and this would amount to causing grievous hurt within the purview of Section 320 of the Code".
41. So in order to bring home the charge u/s 304 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish intention or knowledge. Intention or knowledge has to be inferred from the acts of the accused and the circumstances of the case.
42. Prosecution has cited four public witnesses to show that accused had the requisite intention or knowledge so as to make out a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They SC 27494 of 2016 page no.18 of 26 are, PW-2 Om Prakash and PW-4 Anurag, PW-14 Rakesh brother of deceased and PW-15 Deepa wife of deceased.
43. PW-2 Om Prakash has categorically stated that while he was entering a gali, accused caught hold of him and was trying to hit him. He further states that when deceased Dharmesh opened the door, accused caught hold of the color of deceased and pulled him out and started giving blows of kick and fist. PW-2 does not say as to on which part of the body blows were given. PW-2 was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and during his cross examination stated that according to his opinion accused had given beatings to the deceased and had also hit him on his chest because of which deceased expired. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced as under:-
" I had not told to the police that accused Rahul had caught my collor on the said day. I had not told to the police that my mother and mother of accused had tried to pacify the quarrel on the spot. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present on the spot on the said day and time in question".
44. PW-4 Anurag is the other eye witness who categorically stated that accused had given 4-5 fist blows on the chest of deceased. PW-4 admitted this fact in his initial statement. This SC 27494 of 2016 page no.19 of 26 improvement is of no consequence as merely by not mentioning the number of blows the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded.
45. PW-14 is the brother of the deceased who has also stated that accused caught the deceased from his baniyan and dragged him outside the room, gave repeated blows on the chest of his brother. PW-15 who is the wife of deceased has also stated that accused had given blows on the chest.
46. There is consistency with respect to repeated blows being given on the chest, but how many, nobody says so exactly. The number of blows is relevant because deceased did not collapse on the spot. If repeated blows were given with the intention or the knowledge the accused would not have stopped after couple of blows and would have continue to hit the deceased until his death. In the present case, whatever be the number of blows, which were undoubtedly more than one, they were without any requisite intention or knowledge.
SC 27494 of 2016 page no.20 of 26
47. It has come on record in the testimony of public witnesses named above that as soon as PCR Van came accused and deceased were got separated, accused was taken to PS and deceased was asked to come to police station.
48. In the present case as per Exhibits PW11/A the first call was made to PCR at around 11:55 pm on 20.09.2015 and the information reached PS Subzi Mandi at around 11:56 pm. PW-8 was the first responder to reach the scene, he has deposed that he had asked the deceased as to whether he wants to go to the hospital, for his medical examination, he refused which indicates that till that time he had no issues. The relevant portion of the testimony is reproduced as under:-
"I also asked Dharmesh and others as to whether they want to go to hospital for their medical examination but they refused.
49. It has also come in the deposition of PW-15, wife of deceased that deceased himself had gone on his own scooter to the police station.
50. The incident was captured in the CCTV footage. The perusal of CCTV footage shows that accused is kicking the door SC 27494 of 2016 page no.21 of 26 of the house of deceased. A lady is trying to pacify the accused but he does not listen to her. The CCTV footage also shows that once the deceased opens the door, accused caught hold of his hand and pulls him out and some sort of scuffle takes place, thereafter, the CCTV footage does not show anything except when deceased is walking back with a torn baniyan. The CCTV footage does not explicitly show the number of blows given by the accused and as such, much reliance cannot be placed on the same.
51. PW-18 Dr. Ashish Tyagi conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased and as per post mortem report there was one external injury that to on the right hand ring finger. The relevant portion of the testimony is reproduced as under:-
"External Injuries:-
"Two small reddish colour imprint abrasions of size 0.3 X 0.2 cm present over the distal phalanx of right hand ring finger on the lateral aspect. No other antemortem external injuries were present over the body".
On Internal examination:-
Stomach contains 300 grams semi digested food material and mucosa was congested. Both the lungs were congested, edematous exudes frothy fluid on cut sections. Heart shows 6X4 cm reddish haemorraghic patch over left ventricular area, and the heart was enlarged, whole of the heart was send for histopathological examination. All the viscera was congested".
SC 27494 of 2016 page no.22 of 26
52. The heart of the deceased was sent for histopathological examination, which was carried out by team of doctors. PW-19 and 20 were examined and as per their report "Sections showed Transmural myocardial infarction". On the basis of the histopathological report, PW-21 gave the final opinion and opined the cause of death as "Coronary artery disease and its sequelae".
53. Myocardial infarction is a heart attack which usually occurs when a blood clot blocks the blood flow to the heart. The doctor who conducted the post mortem did not find any external or internal injury, and the pathological report suggested Myocardial infarction which means blood clot was already in existence. Prosecution has not been able to prove that on account of assault, blood clot was formed which caused the heart attack.
54. PW-21 in her cross examination stated that death was caused due to chronic old heart disease. The relevant portion of the cross examination of PW-21 is reproduced as under:-
"It is correct that the death was caused due to chronic/old heart disease".
SC 27494 of 2016 page no.23 of 26
55. It is not the case of prosecution that deceased was suffering from heart disease which was in the knowledge of accused, rather PW-14 in his cross examination has categorically stated that his brother was not suffering from any heart disease. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced as under:-
"My brother Dharmesh was not suffering from any heart disease"\
56. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died as a result of assault made by the accused or that he had any intention or knowledge. The benefit of doubt, therefore, needs to be extended to accused. In the absence of intention or knowledge, it can reasonable and legally be held that by giving fist blow on the chest of the deceased, the accused had intended to cause simple hurt within the purview of Section 323 IPC.
57. Hence, accused stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to deceased.
58. In respect of charge u/s 323 IPC qua Rakesh, Om Prakash and Deepa is concerned, PW-2 Om Prakash does not say that he SC 27494 of 2016 page no.24 of 26 was beaten. In his examination in chief he only says that accused was trying to hit him. He was declared hostile and a specific suggestion as given to him that he was caught by accused and given beatings which fact was denied. The relevant portion of the cross examination conducted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State is reproduced as under:-
"It is wrong to suggest that I had told to the police that accused Rahul after beating Rakesh had caught me and started beating me".
59. Prosecution has not been able to prove that accused had caused simple injuries to PW-2.
60. In so far as injuries to Rakesh is concerned, PW-2 says that accused had manhandled PW-14. PW-4 says that some scuffle took place between accused and PW-14. PW-14 says that he was hit on face. PW-15 in her examination in chief says that her brother-in-law was beaten. In their cross examination PW-4 admitted that he had not told the police about the scuffle between accused and PW-14. No specific suggestion was given to PW14 that he was not hit on the face. PW-14 was the best person to explain regarding the injuries on his person. By not giving specific suggestion to PW-14 that he was not hit on the face, the SC 27494 of 2016 page no.25 of 26 accused had failed to impeach the testimony of PW-14 on this aspect. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Rajender Prasad Vs. Darshana Devi (2001) 7 SCC 69 wherein it was held that in case the correctness of a statement is to be disputed, same must be put to the witness so as to afford him opportunity to explain his statement. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"There is an age old rule that if you dispute the correctness of the statement of a witness you must give him an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it which is objective to as untrue, otherwise you cannot impeach his credit.................".
61. In light of the facts and circumstances the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to PW-14 Rakesh and PW-15 Deepa.
62. Accused stands convicted u/s 323 IPC accordingly and stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 304/452 IPC. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict. Announced on this 28th day of August 2025.
(ANKUR JAIN-I) ASJ-04/Central/Delhi.
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN km JAIN Date: 2025.08.28 14:39:22 +0530 SC 27494 of 2016 page no.26 of 26