Delhi District Court
State vs Neeraj Kumar Tiwari on 16 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIPRA DHANKAR
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01 (CENTRAL), DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 118/2011
PS: Karol Bagh
U/s: 325/34 IPC
State vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors.
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLCT02-0009452011
(a) Sr. No. of the Case 295634/2016
(b) Date of offence 21.08.2011
(c) Complainant Ranjeet Pandey
(d) Accused name and (1) Neeraj Kumar Tiwari S/o Mr. Ram Mahesh address Tiwari R/o H.No. 10165, Sumer Plaza Building, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and permanent R/o Village Buaradi, P.O. Ram Nagar, PS Gaya, District Mujaffarnagar, Bihar (2) Anjam Kumar @ Ajay S/o Nand Kishore R/o 10172, Abdul Aziz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and permanent R/o Gauspur, PS & PS Karjayan Bazxar, District Simpol, Bihar
(e) Offence Under Section 325/34 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Plead not guilty
(g) Final Order Convicted for the offence u/s 325/34 IPC
(h) Date of Institution 23.12.2011 State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 1 of 11 Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:45 +0530
(i) Date when judgment was 09.06.2025 reserved
(j) Date of judgment 09.07.2025 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION
1. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 21.08.2011, at about 10:45 pm, infront of Shop No. 10178, Abdul Aziz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Karol Bagh, both the accused persons namely Neeraj Kumar Tiwari and Anjam Tiwari @ Ajay, in furtherance of their common intention, caused grievous hurt on the person of complainant namely Ranjeet Pandey by using a danda. Hence, it is alleged that they both committed an offence under Section 325/34 IPC. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against both accused persons cognizance of the offence was taken on 23.12.2011. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were duly complied with, arguments on the point of charge were heard and a formal charge for commission of offence u/s 325/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons on 24.08.2012 to which both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 2 of 11
Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:49 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
4. PW-1 is Amarjeet Pandey who deposed that on 21.08.2011, at about 10.30-10.45 pm, he was going from his shop towards his house when the accused Ajay Tiwari (correctly identified by the witness) came near his shop at Abdul Aziz Road and started grappling with him. The witness informed his brother Ranjit through telephone after which his brother came there and intervened in the matter. In the meantime, accused Neeraj Tiwari also came (correctly identified by the witness) and accused Ajay said that "inhone hamse gaon mein bhi dushmani kar rakhi hai aur aaj inko marenge". Accused Ajay then caught hold of the brother of the witness and accused Neeraj hit Ranjeet on his hand with a saria due to which he suffered a fracture. Thereafter, the witness then raised an alarm and both the accused persons ran away from the spot. After that the witness took his brother to Ganga Ram Hospital where the Police Officials also came. The witness then narrated the incident to the police. The witness further stated that during the incident, his gold chain also got misplaced.
The witness was then cross-examined by Ld APP for the State as he had resiled from his previous statement. He stated that accused Neeraj inflicted State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 3 of 11 Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:54 +0530 injury on the right hand of his brother with a danda. He admitted that he had forgotten the said fact due to lapse of time.
The witness was then cross-examined by Ld Counsel for the accused, but no material contradictions were brought forward during the same.
5. PW-2 is ASI Neena Devi who proved registration of FIR which is Ex PW-2/A and endorsement made by her on rukka which is Ex PW-2/B.
6. PW-3 is Ranjeet Pandey who deposed on 21.08.2011, at about 10:45 pm, his younger brother namely Amarjeet informed him on the telephone that Ajay Tiwari was quarrelling with him. The witness immediately reached at the spot i.e outside shop no. 10178, Abdul Aziz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and saw that accused Ajay Tiwari (identified by the witness) was quarrelling with his brother Amardeep. The witness tried to save his brother. Accused Ajay Tiwari then said to accused Neeraj Tiwari (correctly identified by the witness) 'Maro Salo ko inhone gaon me bhi humse dushmani kar rakhi hai, aaj inhe iska maja chakha dete hai'. Thereafter, they abused the witness and accused Ajay caught hold of him while accused Neeraj Tiwari on his right hand with a danda and caused injuries on my right hand. The witness shouted 'bachao-bachao', on hearing which many public persons gathered there causing both the accused persons to run away from the spot. The witness further stated that during said State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 4 of 11 Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:52:57 +0530 incident, his brother's gold chain also broke. Amarjeet and Anirudh Tiwari then took him to Ganga Ram Hospital where he received treatment for a fracture. Thereafter, the IO came to the witness in the hospital but he could not give my statement to the IO due to pain. On 28.08.2011, the witness visited the PS where IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW3/A. He further stated that on 28.8.2011, he joined the investigation with the IO SI Dayanand and went along with the IO to the spot where the IO prepared site plan which is Ex. PW3/B. Thereafter, he along with the IO and one constable went to Taxi Stand Karol Bagh where the IO arrested both the accused persons on his identification vide arrest memo and personal search memo which are Ex. PW3/C, PW3/D, PW3/E and PW3/F. He further stated that the IO made efforts to recover the wooden danda used in the commission of offense but it could not be recovered.
The witness was then cross-examined but no material contradictions could be brought forward.
7. PW-4 is Dr. Harish who identified the signatures of Dr. Satish on victim's MLC which is Ex. PW4/A on the bases of X-ray report which is Ex PW-4/B..
8. PW-5 is Dr. Varun Dhir who proved the X-Ray report which is Ex.PW4/B. State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 5 of 11 Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:02 +0530
9. PW-6 is HC Rakesh Kumar who proved the entry in the Roznamcha Register regarding DD NO. 2A which is Ex PW6/A.
10. PW-7 is Retd. SI Dayanand who deposed regarding the investigation conducted in the present matter.
11. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. STATEMENT U/S 313 IPC R/W UNDER SECTION 281 IPC
12. Statement of both accused persons under section 313 r/w under section 281 IPC recorded wherein the they denied all allegations against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Both accused persons further stated that they did not wish to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, matter was fixed for final arguments. ARGUMENTS
13. The Court has heard the submissions made by Ld. APP for the state as well as the Ld. defence counsel at length. State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 6 of 11
Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:06 +0530
14. Ld. APP for the state submits that both accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged as the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
15. Ld Defence counsel, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has failed to establish its case as there is a crucial gap in its story. It is argued that PW-1 had initially deposed that PW-3 was hit on his right hand with a saria and he later, during cross-examination by Ld APP for the State, stated that the weapon of offence was a danda. This, it is argued, is in contradiction with the case of the prosecution as well as the testimony of PW-3, the victim. Moreover, it is argued that the weapon of offence was never recovered which leaves a crucial lacuna in the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the present case a false one as it has been filed on account of enmity between the parties. Hence, it is argued that the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
16. The accused has been charged for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC which reads as under:
"Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 7 of 11 Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:11 +0530 either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
17. The term "hurt" is defined u/s 319, IPC as "whoever causes bodily pan, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt". Furthermore, any hurt falling under any of the clauses under section 320 IPC is grievous hurt.
18. Hence, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 325, IPC, the prosecution was required to prove voluntary infliction of injury by the accused on the injured and that the injury fell in one of the clauses of section 320 IPC.
19. Having discussed the ingredients that the prosecution is required to prove in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, I find it pertinent to also reiterate one of the most well known principle of criminal jurisprudence that the standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Unless the prosecution, through such evidence, rebuts the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the accused is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt and be acquitted.
State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 8 of 11
Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:15 +0530
20. Keeping in mind the above mentioned principle of criminal law and the necessary ingredients that need to be proved by the prosecution, let us now advert to the facts of the present case as well as the evidence available on record in order to assess the culpability of the accused persons. REASONING/DISCUSSION
21. The foundation of the prosecution case rests on the testimony of PW-1 who is an eye-witness and PW-3 who is the victim. Ld Counsel for the accused persons has attacked the prosecution case on the ground that there has been inconsistency in the statement of PW-1 since he has failed to support the State's case in so far as the description of the weapon of offence is concerned. As per the prosecution story as well as the testimony of the victim, that is, PW-3 is concerned, the weapon of offence was a danda. However, PW-3 has stated that during his examination-in-chief that the same was a saria. Although the same indeed amounts to an inconsistency but, the court is of the view that he same does not rise up to the level of a material inconsistency affecting the credibility of PW-1. It is pertinent to note that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 are consistent in all material particulars except one, that is the nature of the weapon used. Despite there being no recovery of the said weapon, the fact that the versions of both the said witnesses are in consonance with each other in so far as they describe what led to the commission of alleged offence, the manner in State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 9 of 11 Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:22 +0530 which the offence was committed, role of each accused in commission of alleged offence and the nature of injuries suffered by the victim. It is further pertinent to note that the case of the prosecution is not solely dependent on the testimony of PW-1. PW-3, who is the victim of the alleged offences has completely supported the prosecution story and his version is fortified not only from corroboration from the testimony of PW-1 but also the MLC that is available on record. Furthermore, PW-3 has withstood the test of cross- examination as no material contradiction was brought out by the defence in his testimony which makes his testimony reliable and credit-worthy.
22. Another line of attack taken by the defence is that the present case was initiated by PW-1 and PW-3 as there was some pre-existing enmity between them and the accused persons. During cross-examination of PW-3, LD Counsel for the accused persons has questioned the said witness regarding some civil litigation pending between the parties and made suggestion regarding the same being the root of enmity between them that caused the quarrel in question. However, it is pertinent to note that neither the accused persons have brought any witness regarding the alleged enmity existing between the parties nor have they placed on record any copy of documents regarding the civil litigation pending between them. Hence, this line of attack seems to arise from a bald State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 10 of 11 Digitally signed by SHIPRA SHIPRA DHANKAR DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16 16:53:26 +0530 assertion that remains unsubstantiated by any material and hence, must be held to be lacking any force or believability.
23. In view of the fore-going discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, together caused grievous injury to victim Ranjeet to the effect that accused Neeraj and accused Anjam @ Ajay have committed the offence of offences u/s 325/34 IPC.
24. Thus, accused Neeraj and Anjam @ Ajay are convicted for the offences u/s 325/34 IPC.
25. Let the convicts be heard on the quantum of sentence.
26. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to convicts.
Digitally
Pronounced and Signed signed by
SHIPRA
SHIPRA DHANKAR
in the Open Court on 16.07.2025 DHANKAR Date:
2025.07.16
16:53:32
+0530
(Shipra Dhankar)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 (C) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 16.07.2025 State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. FIR No. 118/2011 PS: Karol Bagh Page 11 of 11