Delhi District Court
State vs Jitender @ Golu on 11 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
Jitender @ Golu FIR No.956/14
PS: Paschim Vihar West
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No.56788/16
2. CNR no. DLWT010012872015
3. Date of Institution 16.03.2015
4. Date of Commission of 16.12.2014 offence
5. Name of the accused 1. Jitender @ Golu S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar R/o H. No.A-407, Camp no.4, Jwalapuri, New Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 307 IPC, Section 186 IPC, Section 332/353 IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 10.02.2026 judgment
9. Final order Convicted POOJA
10. Date of such judgment 11.02.2026 TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 12:55:30 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 1 of 32 FIR no.956/14 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that on 15-16.12.2014 ASI Hari Kishan was on duty from 8 pm to 8 am at about 1.37 am he received an information that car no.DL4CAS5144 driven by BC Golu will came towards Jwalapuri after committing offence at Peeragarhi. When they reached Rohtak Road, Golu came in car driving at high speed. He alongwith Ct. Sumer Singh chased the said car and they alerted the picket staff of Peeragarhi Metro Station. When the said car went to Bhera Enclave picket, Ct. Bheem Singh and Ct. Satish were on duty on said picket. They barricaded the road. Jitender @ Golu hit the barricades and after taking u-turn again hit the barricades. They then tried to apprehend him by taking the key of the car. Ct. Satish hit the driver's side screen of the said car with the butt of the gun. Still accused did not stop the car and dragged Ct. Satish. In the said process both Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem were injured but the accused fled from the spot. They tried to chase the accused and called the police. Accused fled from the spot. ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem were taken to the hospital where they were medically examined.
2. On the basis of statement of injured, FIR under Section 186/353/332/307 IPC was registered against the accused. On 17.12.2014 accused was apprehended.
Charge
3. Charge was framed against the accused under POOJA TALWAR Section 307 IPC 186 IPC and 332/353 IPC.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 12:55:52 +0530SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 2 of 32 FIR no.956/14 Prosecution evidence
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined thirteen witnesses as under :-
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW1: Ajeet Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer deposed that IO from PS Mianwali Nagar asked him to produce the Call detail record of Mobile No.9718229622 for the period from 15.12.2014 to 16.12.2014. He obtained the CDR of the abovesaid Mobile number and handed over to the IO alongwith Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The CDR and the Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act are Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW-1/B respectively bearing the stamp of the Company and his initials at Point A. As per record, the Mobile number 9718229622 was in the name of Sh. Naveen Kumar. He did not bring the CAF of the abovesaid mobile number as the relevant record got burnt and an information was given to the SHO, Thana Phase-III, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
(ii) PW2: Vinod Kumar, Nodal Officer produced the summoned record i.e. CDR of Mobile Number 9868634750 for the period from 15.12.2014 to 16.12.2014 alongwith its location and CAF.
As per record, this Mobile number was issued in the name of Sh. Sumer Singh S/o Sh.Sultan. The CDR of the abovesaid Mobile number is running into five pages and bearing his official stamp and his signatures at Point A. The CDR is Ex.PW-2/A. The location Chart is Ex.PW-2/B, bearing his official stamp and POOJA signatures at Point A. He also identified the signatures of Sh. TALWAR P.K. Pandey. The CAF is Ex.PW-2/C and the copy of Identity Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 12:56:07 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 3 of 32 FIR no.956/14 Card of Sh.Sumer Singh is Ex.PW-2/D. He produced the Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-2/E, bearing his official stamp and signatures at Point A. The CDR, Location Chart and Certificate U/s 65B of I.E.Act issued by Sh.P.K.Pandey collectively exhibited Ex.PW-2/F, bearing official stamp and signatures of Sh.P.K.Pandey at Point A.
(iii) PW4: Dr. M. Das deposed that on 16.12.2014, Ct. Satish was examined vide MLC no. 23751 by Dr. M Awani in his presence. After examination, MLC of Ct. Satish was prepared and the patient was referred to SR Ortho for further treatment. On 17.01.2015, he finally opined upon MLC no. 23751 as nature of injury is simple. His opinion in this regard is Ex.PW-4/A bearing his signature at point A. On 16.12.2014, he was posted as CMO at causality of SGM hospital. On that day, Ct. Bheem was examined vide MLC no. 23752 by Dr. M Awani in his presence. After examination, MLC of Ct. Bheem was prepared and the patient was referred to SR Ortho for further treatment. On 17.01.2015, he finally opined upon MLC no. 23752 as nature of injury is simple. His opinion in this regard is Ex.PW-4/B bearing his signature at point A. On 16.12.2014, he was posted as CMO at causality of SGM hospital. On that day, Hari Kishan was examined vide MLC по. 2375 by Dr. Shyam Murti Yadav in his presence. After examination, MLC Of Hari Kishan was prepared. On 23.12.2014, he finally opined upon MLC no. 23753 as nature of injury is simple. His opinion in this regard is Ex.PW-4/C POOJA TALWAR bearing his signature at point A. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 12:56:22 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 4 of 32 FIR no.956/14
(iv) PW4A: Dr. M. Dass identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. M. Awani as he worked with him for a period of one year and have seen him writing and signing. MLC No.23751 Ex.PW4/A bearing signatures of Dr. M. Awani at point B which was encircled in red. The said MLC was in the handwriting of Dr. M. Awani from point Z to Z1. MLC No.23752 Ex.PW4/B bearing signatures of Dr. M. Awani at point B which was encircled in red. The said MLC was in the handwriting of Dr. M. Awani from point Z to Z1.
(v) PW8: Dr. Shyam Murti Yadav as per MLC No. 23753 shown to him, deposed that on 16.12.2014 he examined one person namely Hari Kishan who was brought by police official for his medical examination. The said MLC is Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A.
(vi) PW9: Dr. Madhur Mahna deposed that on 16.12.2014, the MLC no. 23751 patient namely Ct. Satish and Ct. Bhim was also marked to him for the opinion on the X-ray report. He examined the X-ray and gave the opinion on injury as 'simple'.
(vii) PW17: Rahul Negi, Data Entry Operator produced the certified copy of record of vehicle bearing no. DL-4CAS-5144. The same was a Swift Desire Car. The certified copy of the same was there on judicial record and is Ex.PW17/B. POOJA TALWAR
(viii) PW19: Retd. ASI/Tech Devender Kumar deposed that on Digitally signed by POOJA 16.12.2014 on the request of IO SI Umed Singh, he conducted TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 12:58:28 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 5 of 32 FIR no.956/14 mechanical inspection of vehicle bearing no.DL-1CM-4050 make Gypsy Delhi Police. Upon inspection he found fresh damage on front bumper banded and number plate. Damages were also found on grill and front body, damage was also found on front left side indicator light. The vehicle was found fit for road test. The mechanical inspection report of aforesaid vehicle is Ex.PW19/A bearing his signature at point A. On 20.12.2014 on request of IO SI Umed Singh, he conducted mechanical inspection of vehicle bearing no. DL-4CAS-5144 make Swift VDI. Upon inspection he found fresh damages on the aforesaid vehicle on front number plate and plate was scratched and dislocated from left side portion. Front bumper middle and left side was scratched and dislocated. Further, it was found that bumper grill was damaged and driver door window glass was broken. The vehicle was found to be fit for road test. The mechanical inspection report of the aforesaid vehicle is Ex.PW19/3 bearing his signature at point A. Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW3: Ct. Sumer Singh deposed that:
"In the intervening night of 15-16/12/2014, I was posted as constable at PS Mianwali Nagar. On that day, I was on duty as driver on ERV gypsy no. DL 1CM 4050 (WP 57) with incharge ASI Hari Kishan. I alongwith ASI Hari Kishan were patrolling in the area of PS Mianwali Nagar when at about 1.37 a.m DO concerned informed ASI Hari Kishan to the effect that Golu who POOJA TALWAR was the BC of PS Mianwali Nagar was running away after Digitally signed committing crime at Jwala Puri in one Swift car no. 5144.
by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.02.11 12:58:44 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 6 of 32 FIR no.956/14 Thereafter I alongwith ASI Hari Kishan had taken our position at Rohtak Road, Camp no.4 red light. When we reached there I saw that one Swift car white colour no. DL-4C....5144 was coming in a high speed. I chased the said car. The said car moved towards PVC market near Jawalapuri and thereafter moved towards Haryana Sweets, GH-14, Paschim Vihar, and then Village Sayed and thereafter again came to PVC market and after passing through other places reached at Behra Enclave Police Picket, Mianwali Nagar (now Paschim Vihar West). The said car hit against the police barricades stationed there and then took the U- turn and hit against our Gypsy which was being driven by me. The said car again took U-turn and hit against the barricades. Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem were on duty at Behra Enclave Police picket, Ct. Satish hit the driver side screen of the said car with the butt of the gun which he was having. Both Ct. Bheem and Ct. Satish tried to took out the key of the Swift car but could not succeed. The said car was being driven by accused Golu(present in the court).
Accused did not stop the car and dragged Ct. Satish for about 10 to 15 paces with the said car. Ct. Satish fell down on the road and accused had fled away with the car. We took Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem in our Gypsy and again chased the car of the accused. We chased the car of the accused to Peeragarhi Mangolpuri Flyover and accused took the turn towards Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. We chased the accused uptill Rani Bagh but thereafter we did not see the car of the accused. Accused fled POOJA away from there. We searched for the accused and his car but he TALWAR was not traced. Thereafter, we went to SGM hospital where Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 7 of 32 12:59:20 +0530 FIR no.956/14 MLC of ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem was prepared by the doctor. IO ASI Satyavir came to the hospital. He took us to spot with him. ASI Satyavir took into possession the torn uniform of Ct. Satish. I can identify the signatures and handwriting of ASI Hari Kishan as I have seen him writing and signing during the course of official duty. Statement of ASI Hari Kishan present in the file bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex.PW3/A. Seizure memo of uniform pant present in the file dated 16.12.2014 also bears signature of ASI Hari Kishan at point A and the same is Ex. PW3/B. MLC of Ct. Bheem and ASI Hari Kishan was conducted as they had sustained injuries during the incident. I can identify my above stated Gypsy and above stated Swift car if shown to me. The photographs of Gypsy are on the file and witness correctly identified the photographs of the same. Photographs are marked X-1 to X-5. The photographs of the Swift Desire Car are not on the file."
(ii) PW5: Ct. Satish Kumar deposed that:
"On 15-16.12.2014 I was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as constable and my duty hours were from 10:00 PM to 5:00 AM. On that day and Constable Bhim were on picket duty and at about 2:00 AM I received call from police station and duty officer informed that accused Jitender @ Golu committed offence and ran in Swift Car bearing No.DL-4CAS-5144. Thereafter, I and Constable Bhim put barricades on the road. Meanwhile, one white colour swift car came towards GH-14, POOJA which was followed by ERV Gypsy. Said car was driven by TALWAR Golu, who hit the barricades and take U-Turn and while driving Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 12:59:32 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 8 of 32 FIR no.956/14 the car he said that he will not leave the police and also hit the ERV Gypsy. I cried to stop the car of accused by hitting through my insas/rifle on the windowpane of driver seat, due to which Glass of the window was broken, thereafter, I tried to take out the key, however, I failed to do so. Again, I hold the staring of the car and told the accused to stop the car and at that time I sustained injuries, however, accused Golu said that he will not leave us and ran with his car under the Mangolpuri flyover towards Peeragarhi. Thereafter, I and Constable Bhim accompanied the ERV Gypsy personnel namely driver Constable Surmer and ASI Hari Kishan and tried to chase the accused, however, accused ran away. Thereafter, I and Constable Bhim went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and get ourself medically examined. I got injuries in my ring finger of right hand and my knees. IO ASI Satbir recorded my statement and I handed over my torn uniform to the him. Accused is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness."
(iii) PW6: HC Bheem Singh deposed that:
"During intervening night of 15/16.12.2014, I was posted as Constable in PS Mianwali Nagar and during that night, I along with Ct. Satish Kumar were on police picket duty at Bhera Enclave by installation of police barricates. At about 2 am, we received a telephonic information from DO concerned regarding arrival of one Jitender @ Golu (declared area BC), who is POOJA coming after committing an incident by a swift car no. DL 4CAS TALWAR 5144 and we were directed to stop him with his car as he was Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR coming towards us. Date: 2026.02.11 12:59:41 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 9 of 32 FIR no.956/14 On receipt of said information, we started vehicles checking and during the same, one white colour swift car came from the side of GH-14 in faster speed and said swift car was being also followed by ERV vehicle by blowing siren. By driving the said swift car, its driver had hit against police barricates but we managed to save ourselves from that swift car and after hitting the barricates, the driver of said vehicle reversed his car and during that process, the front windscreen was hit by Ct. Satish by using butt of his official rifle. Thereafter, the accused reversed his car and then again hit against our ERV vehicle. At that time, I had seen the accused present in the car, who is present in the Court, correctly identified by the witness. Later on, I came to know his name as Jitender @ Golu, who was previously known to me.
After hitting the ERV vehicle with his Swift car, accused take U turn of his Swift car and hit the barricades. Ct. Satish tried to take out the keys of the said car and hold the steering of the car and on which accused dragged Ct. Satish with his car for about 15-20 foot. Thereafter, Ct. Satish fell down on the road and accused fled away from there with his Swift car. We chased him but accused ran away towards Rani Bagh. I and Ct. Satish had sustained injuries in the said incident. Other police officials took me and Ct. Satish to SGM Hospital where we were medically examined. Thereafter, we again came back to the spot at about 3- 30 AM. IO made enquiries from us and recorded our statement.
POOJA IO seized the uniform pant of Ct. Satish which was got torn. TALWAR Accused is present in the court (correctly identified)." Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 12:59:49 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 10 of 32 FIR no.956/14
(iv) PW7: ASI Rajesh deposed that on 16.12.2014 Ct. Anil came to PS and Handed over to him the rukka of the present case which was sent by ASI Satbir. He made endorsement on the said rukka whch is Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at Pt. A. and thereafter, he registered FIR on the present case Ex.PW7/B bearing his signature at Pt. A. Certificate u/s 65 B regarding the said FIR is Ex.PW7/C bearing his signature at Pt. A. After registration of FIR further investigation was handed over to SI Umed on the direction of SHO.
(v) PW10: HC Karamvir joined SI Umed Singh PW13 in investigation of of FIR no.955/14.
(vi) PW11: HC Rajender joined SI Umed Singh PW13 in investigation of FIR no.955/14.
(vii) PW12: HC Anil Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 15/16.12.2014 he was on emergency duty from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM at PS Mianwali Nagar. On that day in the night hours ASI Satbir Singh received DD no.5A, 6A, 7A and on receipt of which he alongwith ASI Satbir Singh reached at SGM hospital Mangolpuri where injured namely Ct. Satish, Ct. Bheem and ASI Hari Kishan met them and ASI Satbir Singh collected their MLC and thereafter they all alongwith the said injureds reached at the spot i.e. Bhera Enclave Picket where the barricades were found POOJA damaged and one ERV Gypsy no.DL-1CM-4050 was found TALWAR Digitally signed parked there. The front bumper of the Gypsy was found damaged by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 from the middle. ASI Satbir recorded statement of ASI Hari 12:59:58 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 11 of 32 FIR no.956/14 Kishan and prepared rukka and handed it over the same to me to got the FIR registered at PS Mianwali Nagar. He went to PS Mianwali Nagar and got the FIR registered and came back to the spot alongwith SI Umedh. SI Umedh Singh inspected the spot and made enquires from the injured police staff. They searched for the accused persons but they were not found.
(viii) PW13: Retd. SI Umed Singh deposed that on 15.12.2014 he received a call regarding quarrel and he lodged an FIR no.955/14 u/s 452/323/506/34 IPC and in the said FIR accused Jitender @ Golu and Sanjay @ Judi were named. The present case was being investigated by SI Umed Singh against accused Jitender @ Golu.
On 17.12.2014 he alongwith SI Umed Singh, Ct. Karamvir and Ct. Rajender left the PS for the investigation of the present FIR and the FIR no.955/14. When they reached at PVC market, SI Umed Singh received the secret information that Jitender @ Golu and his co-associate were sitting at open ground in the PVC Market. Thereafter, a raiding team was prepared with all the abovesaid police officials. SI Umed Singh requested some public persons to join the raiding party but none agreed. However, the said public persons left the spot without giving their names and addresses. Thereafter, he hide himself behind the gas godown, Ct. Karamvir hid himself near a Wine shop and SI Umed and Ct. Rajender went to the place where the accused and other persons were probably hiding as per the secret information. Three persons POOJA were present there and after seeing them all started fleeing. He TALWAR Digitally signed managed to apprehend accused Jitender @ Golu and Ct Karamvir by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 managed to apprehend Sanjay @ Judi. The third person managed 13:00:05 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 12 of 32 FIR no.956/14 to flee. Thereafter, he made interrogation with both the persons apprehended on his case. After that SI Umed Singh had interrogated both the persons in the present case. After interrogation, SI Umed Singh arrested accused Jitender @ Golu Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at point B. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/B bearing his signature at point A. IO SI Umed Singh had also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW10/C bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, accused Jitender took them to the place of incident i.e. Bhairon Enclave, Police picket and pointed towards the place of occurrence. Thereafter accused Jitender and Sanjay were taken to SGM hospital and their medical examination were conducted. Thereafter, his statement was recorded and he was discharged from this case. Witness correctly identified the accused Jitender @ Golu in the court.
(ix) PW14: ASI Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 15.12.2014 he was working as DD Writer and his duty hours were from 4.00 PM to 12.00 mid night. Witness produced Rojnamcha Register no.B from dated 11.12.2014 to 23.12.2014 and shown entry no. 57, 62, 63 and 65. The verified and attested copy of the said DD entries were attached with the case file and same are Ex. PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D.
(x) PW15: Retd. ACP Har Charan Verma deposed that on POOJA 09.03.2015 IO of the present case namely SI Umed Singh TALWAR Digitally signed produced the charge-sheet of the said case alongwith the other by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 relevant documents before him. On the basis of the charge-sheet, 13:00:14 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 13 of 32 FIR no.956/14 he gave permission u/s 195 CrP.C to prosecute the accused Jitender @ Golu. The permission is Ex. PW15/A bearing his signature at point A.
(xi) PW16: HC Prashant joined IO/SI Umed Singh in investigation.
(xii) PW18: Insp. Umed Singh deposed that:
"On 16.12.2014 I was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as SI. On that day at about 6.00 am Ct. Anil handed over to me copy of FIR and original tehrir of the present case in PS Mianwali Nagar. I alongwith tehrir went to the spot of incident in question i.e. Behra Enclave Picket within jurisdiction of PS Mianwali Nagar. I met ASI Satbir who was present at the spot alongwith other police staff namely ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Satish, Ct. Bhim and Ct. Sumer. I was accompanied by Ct. Anil. ASI Satbir the previous IO handed over to me the MLC of Ct. Satish, Ct. Bhim and ASI Hari Kishan. I recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of ASI Hari Kishan and other police staff as stated by them to me. Ct. Satish handed over to me his torn uniform, the same was seized by me by preparing pullinda. The pullinda was sealed with the seal of US. The seizure memo is already Ex.PW3/B bearing my signature at point B. 1 prepared the site plan. The site plan is Ex.PW18/A bearing my signature at point A. I got inspected the site and also got its photographs clicked from all angles. The said POOJA photographs are already Mark X1 to X5. The complainant TALWAR informed me that the accused was driving one car make Maruti Digitally signed by POOJA Swift bearing no. DL-4CAS-5144. Upon this I got the search of TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 13:00:23 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 14 of 32 FIR no.956/14 the car done and also of the accused. I returned back to PS Mianwali. On 17.12.2014 ASI Umed Singh got one secret information that accused of the present case can be found at Gas Godown Jawalapuri near Nihal Vihar. A raiding party was got constituted. I was also the member of this raiding party. Together alongwith secret informer went to the aforesaid place. At the said place, at the instance of the secret informer, accused Jitender @ Golu of the present case was arrested by ASI Umed Singh in his case FIR no.955/14 PS Mianwali. Accused Jitender @ Golu disclosed about his involvement in present case also. I arrested accused Jitender @ Golu in the present case. The arrest memo of accused Jitender @Golu is already Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at point B. Personal search of accused was got conducted vide memo already Ex.PW10/B bearing my signature at point B. I also recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already ExPW10/C bearing my signature at point C. Thereafter the accused was taken to the place of occurrence of offence and pointing out memo Ex.PW10/D was got prepared. The said memo bears my signature at point B. Thereafter, the accused Jitender @ Golu was got produced before the concerned court and from there he was taken on one day PC remand.
On 19.12.2014 at the instance of accused Jitender we recovered the Maruti Swift Car bearing no. DI.4CAS5144 from an open ground in front of Inderlok Metro Station. The car was seized by preparing seizure memo which is Ex.PW18/B bearing POOJA my signature at point A. The said car was found to be in the TALWAR name of Asha sister of the accused. Thereafter the accused was Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR got sent to judicial custody. Date: 2026.02.11 13:00:30 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 15 of 32 FIR no.956/14 It is informed by witness that on 16.12.2014 he had got Govt. vehicle bearing No.DLICM4050 police gypsy mechanically inspected. I also got vehicle bearing no. DL4CAS5144 recovered at the instance of accused mechanically inspected on 20.12.2014. The RTO record of the aforesaid car is already Ex.PW17/B. A notice u/s 133 MV Act was given to Asha. A reply to this notice was given by Asha. The notice is Ex.PW18/C bearing my signature at point A. Reply of Asha is Ex.PW18/D. In the reply it was stated by Asha that the aforesaid Swift car was in possession of accused Jitender on 15.12.2014 During investigation I also recorded the statement u/s 161 CrPC of all the witnesses. I collected the result of the MLC. I obtained permission u/s 195 CrPC for offence u/s 186 IPC. The permission u/s 195 Cr.PC already Ex.PW15/A. I prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Hon'ble Court.
At this stage, witness is shown photographs of the spot Mark X1 to X5, the same has been correctly identified by the witness as being got clicked by him. Accused Jitender @Golu is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness.
I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this stage, perusal of record reveals that vide statement dated 03.12.2025 accused has submitted that he is not disputing the identity and existence of Swift Desire car bearing no.DI-4CAS-5144. At this stage, MHCM has produced one sealed pullinda duly sealed with the seal of US. Same is opened POOJA with the permission of the court. Upon opening the same, one TALWAR khakhi colour pant part of police uniform is taken out, same is Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR found to be torn from the side of left leg. The same is having Date:
2026.02.11 13:00:37 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 16 of 32 FIR no.956/14 skid marks on the torn portion. Same has been shown to the witness who has identified the said torn pant as the one seized in the present case. Same is Ex. X6."
5. In statement of accused under Section 313 CrP.C he has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police officials due to previous enmity and their illegal gratification not fulfilled by him.
Arguments on behalf of the State
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that all the prosecution witnesses have completely supported the story of prosecution. Both the injured witnesses Ct. Satish Kumar and HC Bheem Singh have not been cross-examined. Their testimony remained urebutted and uncontroverted. There is ample evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused. Accused deserves to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
7. Ld. counsel for accused, per contra argued that the the accused has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. There is no videography done which shows that accused was driving the car or was involved in the alleged incident. The present FIR was registered in relation to incident reported in FIR no.955/2014 PS Mian Wali Nagar. It is alleged against the accused that after commission of offence in the aforesaid FIR he POOJA was trying to flee and was chased by the police constables TALWAR deputed at Bhera Enclave Picket around one 1.45 am on Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 13:00:45 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 17 of 32 FIR no.956/14 16.12.2014. The incident alleged in FIR no.955/2014 was reported at 4.05 hrs. which is subsequent to the alleged incident in this case. This clearly proves that accused has been falsely implicated. No public witness has been joined and all the police witnesses have been managed to depose falsely against the accused. Accused deserves to be acquitted.
Analysis of Law:
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
8. The essential ingredients to prove offence under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) are: (1) An act done with intention or knowledge to cause death and (2) This act must be performed under such circumstances that if it resulted in death, it would constitute murder.
9. The prosecution must prove the mens rea (guilty mind) and the actus reus (guilty act). Proof of injury is not POOJA mandatory, but the act itself must be of a nature that shows the TALWAR intention or knowledge to cause death. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 13:01:03 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 18 of 32 FIR no.956/14
10. Now in order to prove Intention or Knowledge to cause death, prosecution must prove that the Act must be performed with the specific intent to cause death, or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.
11. In the five prime point to complete the offence are enumerated below:
1. The Act: The accused must have performed an act that shows a clear intention or knowledge to commit murder.
2. Circumstances: The circumstances surrounding the act must be such that if the act had resulted in death, it would have been considered murder.
3. Risk of Death: The act must be so dangerous and imminently threatening that it carries a high probability of causing death or severe bodily injury, and the accused has no excuse for incurring this risk.
Important Considerations- Proof of Injury is Not Required:
Unlike murder, causing an actual injury is not a necessary element to prove an attempt to murder under Section 307. The focus is on the act and the intention or knowledge behind it.
4. Failed Attempt: A Section 307 offense is, by definition, a failed attempt to commit murder, where the death is not ultimately caused.
5. Severity of the Act: The severity of the offense is determined by the potential risk involved and the circumstances, not merely POOJA TALWAR the eventual outcome.Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 13:01:50 +0530
SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 19 of 32 FIR no.956/14
12. Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses the offense of "Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions". It states that anyone who voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the performance of their public duties can be punished with imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of up to 500 rupees, or both.
13. Key Elements of Section 186: For an act to be punishable under Section 186, the following essential ingredients must be present:
1. Public Servant: The person obstructed must be a "public servant" as defined under Section 21 of the IPC. This includes government officials, judges, military personnel, police officers, and others holding positions in the service of the state.
2. Voluntary Obstruction: The obstruction must be intentional and deliberate. The term "voluntarily" implies that the obstruction is caused with the knowledge and intent of the offender.
3. Discharge of Public Functions: The obstruction must occur while the public servant is discharging their official duties or public functions. It should directly relate to their role as a public servant.
4. Punishment: The offender can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term up to three months, fined up to 500 rupees, or both.
14. Complaint Required: A complaint under Section POOJA TALWAR 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a mandatory requirement for the court to take cognizance of this Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.02.11 13:02:01 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 20 of 32 FIR no.956/14 offence.
15. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) penalizes the use of assault or criminal force against a public servant to prevent or deter them from performing their official duties, or as a consequence of them performing those duties lawfully. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
16. Key Elements of the Offence:
1. Assault or Criminal Force: The act must involve either an assault (a gesture or preparation that makes someone apprehend immediate use of criminal force) or the actual use of criminal force.
2. Public Servant: The victim of the assault or criminal force must be a public servant.
3. During Duty: The assault or force must occur while the public servant is carrying out their duty, or with the intent to prevent them from doing so, or in retaliation for their lawful actions.
4. Purpose of the Section: The primary aim of Section 353 is to protect public servants in the performance of their official duties and to ensure that they can carry out their functions without hindrance or injury. This is crucial for maintaining law and order POOJA and the smooth functioning of the government. TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 21 of 32 13:02:07 +0530 FIR no.956/14
17. The essential ingredients of Section 332 are:-
1. Voluntarily with free consent causing hurt or grievous hurt to a public servant in his duty.
2. The hurt should be caused.
a. Acting in public servant duty b. Stopping the public servant in stopping to do the act. c. It is done intentionally to cause discharge of his function will be the consequence.
18. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Observation of the Court:
19. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on the complaint of ASI Hari Kishan Ex.PW3/A, he could not be produced in the witness box as he expired, however PW3 Ct. Sumer Singh reiterated the contents of his complaint in his deposition before the court. He reiterated that the accused was driving the car bearing no.DL4CAS5144 at a high speed and hit his car against the police barricades, took a u-turn and hit against the gypsy driven by him. Ct. Satish PW5 and Ct. Bheem PW6 in order to apprehend the accused tried to take the key of the car. Ct. Satish hit the driver's side screen of the said car with the butt of the gun. Despite the said fact accused did not stop the car and dragged Ct. Satish. In the said process both Ct. Satish and Ct. POOJA TALWAR Bheem were injured but the accused fled from the spot. Hari Digitally signed Kishan, Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem were taken to the hospital by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 13:02:14 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 22 of 32 FIR no.956/14 where their medical was done.
20. PW5 Ct. Satish and PW6 HC Bheem Singh reiterated the testimony of PW3 HC Sumer in all material particulars.
21. Before deliberating on the charges levelled against the accused it would be pertinent to decide on the presence of accused at the place of alleged incident.
22. It is claimed by the accused that he was not present at the place of incident and was falsely implicated.
23. Per contra all the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed against the accused and have identified him in court. PW3 HC Sumer Singh levelled allegations against the accused and testified in terms of complaint Ex.PW3/A of ASI Hari Kishan. No suggestion is given to this witness by the defence counsel that accused was not present at the place of incident.
24. PW5 too reiterated the allegations against the accused but was not cross-examined by the defence counsel at all. PW6 HC Bheem Singh categorically deposed that "At that time, I had seen the accused present in the car, who is present in the court, correctly identified by the witness. Later on, I came to POOJA TALWAR know his name as Jitender @ Golu who was previously known to me." Despite opportunity being given the witness too was not Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 13:04:58 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 23 of 32 FIR no.956/14 cross-examined.
25. Even in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC plea of alibi has not been claimed by the accused. Hence prosecution succeeded in proving the presence of accused at the relevant place on the date of alleged incident.
26. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The complainant as well as the witnesses are all police officials hence much credence cannot be given to their testimony.
27. In so far as the said argument is concerned, it has been held in "Govinda Raju @ Govinda vs State of Shri Ram Puram PS & Anr", Crl Appeal No. 984 of 2007 , by Hon'ble Supreme Court, that "Wherever the evidence of the police officers, after careful scrutiny, inspires evidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case......... No infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence on the police officers, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent witness." POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 24 of 32 13:05:09 +0530 FIR no.956/14
28. Even otherwise it is a settled proposition of law that testimony of injured witness stands on a different pedestal and is sufficient in itself, requires no corroboration. The injured witnesses in the instant case have not been cross-examined and their testimony remains unrebutted and uncontroverted.
29. Testimony of police witnesses shall not been thrown at the outset only for the fact that they are police witnesses when their testimonies are otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. Hence this argument of the defence counsel does not hold strength.
30. It is also argued by the counsel that no CCTV footage has been obtained nor any videography has been done to prove that accused was driving the swift car.
31. In so far as the said argument is concerned, only for the fact that no CCTV footage has been taken would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution when there is other evidence in the form of oral testimonies available on record.
32. Undisputedly no videography has been done to show that accused was driving the car. However PW6 HC Bheem Singh deposed that "At that time I had seen the accused present POOJA in the car, who is present in the court, correctly identified by the TALWAR witness. This witness has not been cross-examined and his Digitally signed testimony on this aspect remained unrebutted. Hence this by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 argument too would be of no resort to the accused. 13:05:32 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 25 of 32 FIR no.956/14
33. With this backdrop I shall proceed to decide the charges levelled against the accused.
34. Accused is firstly charged with the offence under Section 307 IPC for causing hurt on the person of ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem Singh with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that in case their death was caused he would have been guilty of murder.
35. It is alleged against the accused that when Ct. Bheem and Ct. Satish tried to take the keys of the swift car being driven by the accused, he did not stop the car but dragged Ct. Satish for 10 to 15 paces with the car. Ct. Satish fell down on the road. No suggestion is given to this witness by the defence counsel that no such injury was caused to Ct. Satish by the accused.
36. PW5 Ct. Satish too deposed that when he tried to stop the car of the accused by hitting the rifle on the window due to which the glass was broken. When he tried to stop the car accused did not stop the car and in the process he sustained injuries.
37. PW6 HC Bheem deposed that when they chased the accused he ran away and he alongwith Ct. Satish sustained POOJA TALWAR injuries in the incident.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 13:06:06 +0530SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 26 of 32 FIR no.956/14
38. Prosecution besides the testimony of these aforesaid witnesses examined Dr. M. Dass who proved MLC Ex.PW4/A of Ct. Satish on which the opinion given by him on the said injuries is simple.
39. He also proved the MLC Ex.PW4/B of Ct. Bheem even on the said MLC the opinion given is simple injury.
40. Now the question which needs deliberation is whether accused is liable under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to victims with an intention or knowledge that his act would have caused death of the victims.
41. In case the MLCs of victims Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem Singh are discerned it would reveal that both the victims sustained simple injuries.
42. Pre requisite to prove Section 307 IPC is intention or knowledge and the injuries caused are such as are likely to cause death.
43. The intention or knowledge on the part of accused is to be assessed from the manner in which the injuries were caused, the nature of injuries and the specific part of the body where such injuries were sustained. As per the prosecution story accused crossed the picket after committing offence at some other place. So intention to cause injury cannot be imputed. He POOJA TALWAR did not know that the police officials were waiting for him.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 27 of 32 Date: 2026.02.11 FIR no.956/14 13:06:12 +0530
Hence it is difficult to hold that accused had intention or knowledge to inflict said injury which was sufficient to cause death and hold him guilty of culpable of homicide or murder.
44. It is proved on record that injuries were sustained by the aforesaid two victims at the hands of accused though not with an intention or knowledge to cause death. It has come on record that when Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem tried to stop the accused, he did not stop and dragged Ct. Satish. So intention to kill cannot be imputed.
45. Accordingly I am of the considered opinion that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out.
46. Although, prosecution has failed to prove that offence under Section 307 IPC is made out but in view of Section 222 CrPC when offence proved is included in the offence charged, even if the charged offence is not proved the same would not entail acquittal in case the offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence. Section is reproduced herein under:
222. When offence proved included in offence charged- (1)When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a POOJA complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the TALWAR remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the Digitally signed minor offence, though he was not charged with it.(2)When a by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 13:06:19 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 28 of 32 FIR no.956/14 person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.(3)When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.(4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied."
47. Offence under Section 323 IPC is a minor offence included within Section 307 IPC. Section 323 reproduced herein under:
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--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.
48. In view of the law as laid down by Apex Court it is settled law that for the purpose of Section 323 IPC the nature of injury is critical to determine the liability of the offender. It is also required to be proved that the offence was committed voluntarily with an intention to cause hurt.
POOJA
49. It has been proved in the preceding paragraphs that TALWAR the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW5 Ct. Satish and PW6 Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 29 of 32 Date: 2026.02.11 FIR no.956/14 13:06:26 +0530 HC Bheem Singh which is proved through the MLCs of both them coupled with the other reliable ocular evidence.
50. Keeping in mind the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion accused caused hurt to the victims Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem Singh hence the offence under Section 323 IPC stands proved against accused for causing hurt to victims. He is held liable under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt voluntarily.
51. Accused has also been charged with the offence under Section 186 IPC for voluntarily obstructing ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Bheem and Ct. Satish in discharge of their public duty.
52. In order to bring home the said charge prosecution is required to prove that firstly the victims are required to be a public servants secondly they should be discharging their official duty and thirdly the accused should have obstructed them in discharge of the same.
53. In case the testimony of PW3 Ct. Sumer Singh is discerned he deposed that he alongwith ASI Hari Kishan were patrolling in the area of PS Mian Wali Nagar when they were informed that Golu who was the BC of the area was running away after committing crime at Jawlapuri in Swift car no.DL4CAS5144. They took their position at Rohtak Road.
POOJA When they tried to stop the speeding swift car being driven by TALWAR Golu he hit against police barricades stationed there took a u-turn Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 30 of 32 Date: 2026.02.11 FIR no.956/14 13:06:33 +0530 and hit against police gypsy driven by him. Despite being asked to stop he fled.
54. His statement is corroborated with the testimonies of other witnesses i.e. PW5 Ct. Satish Kumar and HC Bheem Singh who were present at the place of incident. The accused despite being aware that he was being asked to surrender, fled from the place and deterred the police officials from performing their duty. Hence he is liable under Section 186 IPC.
55. Further accused has also been charged under Section 353 IPC and Section 332 IPC for using criminal force and for causing hurt to the public servants.
56. It has come in the testimony of all the three material witnesses of the prosecution that while HC Sumer PW3 as well as ASI Hari Kishan were on patrolling duty upon receiving the information followed accused while he was driving one swift car after commission of offence. After hitting the police barricades when the accused took a u-turn and when Ct. Satish and HC Bheem tried to stop him, he dragged Ct. Satish. Ct. Satish fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Even the uniform of Ct. Satish was torn. The uniform was taken into possession by ASI Satyaveer. PW6 HC Bheem Singh was also injured due to force used by the accused. The injuries sustained by both Ct. Satish and Ct. Bheem is proved through the testimony of Dr. M. Dass POOJA who examined both these witnesses and gave an opinion on the TALWAR injuries sustained by these aforesaid witnesses. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.11 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 31 of 32 13:06:40 +0530 FIR no.956/14
57. Testimony of PW3 HC Sumer Singh, PW5 Ct. Satish Kumar and PW6 HC Bheem Singh could not be impeached despite extensive cross-examination. On collective reading of the testimonies of aforesaid three witnesses all the ingredients essential to prove the offence under Section 332 and Section 353 IPC are made out.
58. Prosecution through the testimony of witnesses as well as MLC of PW5 HC Satish and PW6 HC Bheem Singh alongwith photographs marked X-1 to X-5 of the gypsy in damaged condition and swift car no.DL4CAS5144 driven by accused being worn out as alleged by witnesses and proved by the witness who conducted mechanical inspection of the vehicles. are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
59. In view of aforesaid findings, accused Jitender @ Golu is convicted for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC, Section 186, Section 332 IPC and 353 IPC. POOJA TALWAR Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) Digitally signed on 11.02.2026 ASJ-01(FTC) West District, by POOJA TALWAR Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Date: 2026.02.11 13:06:50 +0530 SC No.56788/16 State. Vs. Jitender @ Golu Page : 32 of 32 FIR no.956/14