Delhi District Court
State vs Karan on 22 December, 2025
SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of:-
Sessions Case No. 860/2024
CNR No. DLNT01-010779-2024
FIR No. 371/2024
Police Station : Maurya Enclave
Charge Sheet filed Under Section : 110/303(2)/3(5) BNS
Charges Framed Under Section : 109/3(5) BNS
State V/s Karan
S/o Raju
R/o Vagabond.
.... Accused
Date of committal to 07.11.2024
this court
Date of final 18.12.2025
arguments
Date of Judgment 22.12.2025
Appearance : Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the
State.
Sh. Ashish Dahiya, Ld.CLADC for
accused.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX AND CASE GENESIS Nisha The Incident Sahay Saxena
1. The criminal proceedings originated from events that Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:33:07 +0530 FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 1 of 29 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan transpired on 07th July, 2024, at approximately 2:00 PM in the area of RU Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi. The incident began, when Jai Pratap Singh - Supervisor of security guards, on being suspicious stopped two boys, roaming in the area of RU Block, Pitam Pura, carrying a sack (plastic bag). When the complainant Jai Pratap Singh checked the said sack, the same was found containing copper wire, the said boys threatened him with life. However, the complainant raised an alarm, which resulted in the said two boys attacking upon him with a wire-cutter with an intention to kill him and also bit him with teeth. In the meantime, residents of the locality gathered there and apprehended one of the those boys i.e. accused Karan, while the second boy managed to escape along with the sack.
2. The matter was reported to the police through GD No. 0036A, which was initially marked to SI Shubham, but in the meantime he was marked another call qua attempt to murder, the present DD was marked to ASI Santosh Kumar, who went to BJRM Hospital to collect the MLC of the injured. He recorded statement of the complainant, leading to the registration of the FIR.
3. During the investigation, the accused Karan, who was brought to the Police Station by the residents of Ru Block, Nisha Sahay was arrested by the IO. At the instance of accused one wire Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 2 of 29 Date: 2025.12.23 16:33:14 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan cutter having blood stains was recovered. Efforts were made to trace the said second boy / associate of accused Karan namely Ganje but in vain. The case property comprising of copper wire cutter was seized. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused, and after cognizance was taken by the Ld. Magistrate, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
CHARGE
4. Charge was framed against the accused Karan for offences punishable under Section 109 read with section 3 (5) BNS of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused pleaded not guilty to charge and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. During trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses in all. S.No Witness Description of testimony
1. PW 1 HC Anita DD Writer
2. PW 2 HC Took the samples to FSL.
Devender
3. PW 3 Jai Pratap Injured cum complainant.
Singh
4. PW 4 HC Dinesh Duty Officer
5. PW 5 Sanjay Resident of RU Block.
Kumar
6. PW 6 Dheeraj Resident of RU Block - eye Nisha Mishra witness. Sahay Saxena FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 3 of 29 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:33:20 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan
7. PW 7 HC Sunil. Joined investigation with IO.
8. PW 8 ASI Santosh Investigating Officer.
Kumar
9. PW 9 SI Shubham DD was initially marked to him.
10. PW 10 HC Bhadar MHC(M) Mal Documents relied upon by the prosecution :
S.No. Nature of document Exhibit 1. DD No. 36 A Ex. PW 1/A. 2. Statement of injured. Ex. PW 3/A. 3. Arrest Memo of accused. Ex. PW 3/B. 4. Personal search memo of accused. Ex. PW 3/C.
5. Sketch of iron cutter / weapon of Ex. PW 3/D & offence. Ex. PW 7/D
6. FIR Ex. PW 4/A.
7. Endorsement on original complaint. Ex. PW 4/B.
8. Certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act. Ex. PW 4/C.
9. Site Plan. Ex. PW 7/A.
10. Seizure Memo of wire / iron cutter. Ex. PW 7/B.
11. Tehrir. Ex. PW 8/A.
12. Entry no. 2269 in register no. 19. Ex. PW 10/A (colly)
13. Copy of RC. Ex. PW 10/B.
14. Copy of acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW 10/C & Mark PW 2/A.
15. Wire cutter / weapon of offence. Ex. P1.
16. MLC of injured. Ex. C-1.
17. FSL Result dated 15.01.2025 Ex. C-2. Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 4 of 29 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:33:27 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan DEFENCE CASE
6. In his statement under Section 351 BNSS (313 CrPC), the accused Karan denied all allegations and claimed false implication. His defence centered on the assertion that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated
7. I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Ashish Dahiya, Ld. CLADC for accused and have considered the rival contentions put forth by both the parties, gone through the relevant case law and have scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
ANALYSIS & REASONING
8. In the present case, the allegations against the accused Karan are that when complainant Jai Pratap Singh, on being suspicious, stopped the accused and his associate / co- accused Ganje (not arrested), they both gave him beatings and assaulted him with wire cutter, with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if due to the injuries sustained, Jai Prata Singh would have died, he would have been guilty of murder, punishable under section 109 read with 3 (5) BNS. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of PW3 complainant Jai Pratap Singh, PW 5 Sanjay Kumar and PW 6 Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 5 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:33:35 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan Dheeraj Mishra.
9. PW 3 complainant Jai Pratap Singh in his testimony deposed that he is working as supervisor of the security guards, being posted at RU Block, Pitampura. Though he did not remember the date but it was the month of July, 2024, in the noon hours at around 2PM, when he was taking round in RU Block, he had seen two boys, who were carrying a heavy plastic katta/bag. On being suspicious, he stopped and asked them to get the said plastic katta checked and in that process when he bent down, he saw that there was copper wire in the same. One of the said two boys, pushed him and while the second one held his neck with his arm from his back and caused injury with an iron cutter on his head. Blood started oozing out from the wounds. Public persons of the locality started gathering there and apprehended one of them, while the second boy succeeded to flee away from the spot taking away the abovesaid plastic katta.
10. At the time of recording of his testimony, Ld. Predecessor has observed that after seeing the persons present in Court, the witness has pointed out towards accused Karan and correctly identified him, saying that he was the person who had caused injuries on his head at the time of incident with the Nisha cutter. He further deposed that he was taken to hospital, Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 6 of 29 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:33:41 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan where he got treatment and thereafter had come to PS, where IO recorded his statement. He correctly identified the iron cutter used by the accused for causing injuries to him and also identified his signatures on the sketch memo of the same, at point A.
11. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW3 deposed that Sh. Dheeraj Mishra, resident and Pradhan of the locality, had made a call at 100 number. He was taken to hospital by Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Manish Tiwari. Two guards were on duty but when he confronted the said two boys, who were carrying heavy plastic katta / bag, other two security guards were not with him, nor he called them before checking the plastic bag. He was not provided first aid at the spot. His statement was recorded at the police station. He denied the suggestion that he had quarreled with other security guards, during the course of which he sustained injuries or that in order to save his colleagues, he had filed a false complaint against the accused, who used to pick garbage in that area. He denied the suggestion that accused did not cause any injury to him or that the iron cutter was planted upon him.
12. PW 5 Sanjay Kumar - resident of RU Block, Nisha deposed that on 07.07.2024 during noon hours at about 2.00- Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 7 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:33:48 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan 2.15 PM, on hearing noise of commotion (shorsharaba), he came outside his house and saw that the guard of his block namely Jai Pratap singh was sitting on the ground in injured condition having bleeding injuries and public persons had apprehended one boy, whom he had not seen as he was amidst the crowd. On request of his neighbours, he had shifted Jai Pratap Singh to BSA Hospital.
13. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW5 deposed that Vice President of their locality Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Manish Tiwari had requested him to shift the injured to hospital and they both also accompanied him. Prior to leaving for the hospital, police had not reached at the spot.
14. PW 6 Sh. Dheeraj Mishra - retired CRPF Commandant and resident of the same locality, corroborating the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, deposed that on 07.07.2024 at about 2.30 PM, on hearing noise of commotion and on being called by Mr. Lavneet Kapoor, Secretary, he came down from his house, and saw that the guard of their society, who was known by the name of JP (full name Jai Prakash), was sitting on the ground in injured condition, having bleeding injuries on his head and accused Nisha Karan (correctly identified) was apprehended by public person. Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 8 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:33:54 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan He made a PCR call regarding the incident, which was of theft. He had also managed to transfer the injured to BSA Hospital, while the other residents of the society had taken the accused to police station Maurya Enclave. On being put a leading question by Ld. Prosecutor, PW 6 acknowledged that the name of the guard was Jai Pratap Singh and not Jai Prakash.
15. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW6 deposed that police had reached at the spot after 10-15 minutes of his making the PCR call. Though he briefed the police about the incident, but did not remember whether his statement was recorded or not. When he came downstairs in the street, there were 20-25 residents of their society. He had made the PCR call from his personal number. The guards of the society were appointed by the Secretary of their RWA, RU Block, Pitampura. He was given information regarding theft by the Secretary Mr. Lavneet Kapoor and there was no information regarding any quarrel between them. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused Karan at the spot or that he had identified the accused in order to support the case of their security guard.
16. The star and the sterling witnesses of the prosecution are the injured PW 3 Jai Pratap Singh, PW 5 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Nisha and PW 6 Sh. Dheeraj Mishra. In case Rai Sandeep Vs. State Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 9 of 29 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:34:01 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, it has been observed as under :
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all Nisha other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 10 of 29 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:34:13 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.
17. In the case in hand, the injured examined by the prosecution fit the bill of a sterling witness, to the hilt. He has supported the prosecution case, which is based on the complaint in letter and spirit, to the last digit.
18. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the first and the foremost lacuna in the prosecution case is that there is a delay in registration of the FIR, as the alleged incident took place at about 2.00 PM and the FIR was registered at about 21.41 PM. Per contra, Ld. Prosecutor has argued that there is no delay in lodging the FIR, as the matter was immediately reported to the police vide GD No. 36 A, pursuant whereto the police reached at the spot but by that time, the injured had already been removed to the hospital. Since one of the assailant was apprehended by the public Nisha persons at the spot itself, he was brought to the police station. Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 11 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:34:23 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan Immediately after receiving medical treatment at BSA Hospital, the injured came to police station, where his statement was recorded and the present case FIR was registered. On receipt of DD No. 36 A, IO ASI Santosh Kumar also visited the hospital and collected the MLC of the injured. As per the MLC of the injured, the same was prepared at 3.10 PM and five fresh injuries were observed on his person, and thereafter he was referred for conducting X-ray. The backside of MLC, finds the timing of 07.07.2024 4:10 PM, wherein it was observed that expert Radiologist's opinion is awaited and thereafter at 6.00 PM, the patient was referred to Surgery for head injury, meaning thereby that till 6.00 PM, when he was referred to Surgery, the patient was there in the hospital itself and was under medical treatment. Since the patient / injured was under medication, his statement could not be recorded. As such, I find myself in agreement that the recording of the FIR at 21.41 PM, does not form a 'delay' in registration of the FIR.
19. While the incident occurred at 2:30 PM and the FIR was registered at 21:41 PM, this delay was not fatal to the prosecution's case for following reasons:
(i) The matter was immediately reported to police through GD No. 36A.
(ii) The injured required immediate medical Nisha Sahay attention, which would naturally delay formal Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 12 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:34:29 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan statement recording.
(iii) The severity of injuries to the injured, made immediate statement recording impractical.
(iv) The time required for medical treatment and stabilization of victim was reasonable.
The delay was justified by circumstances and did not constitute a material defect in the prosecution's case.
20. The only defence taken on behalf of the accused is of false implication, but no specific reason has been ascribed by the defence for false implication of accused by the complainant, who were unknown to each other and did not have any grudge against each other, giving any motive to the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. The accused in his statement u/s 351 BNSS (313 CrPC) is totally silent on this aspect, though during cross examination of PW 3, suggestion was put to him by Ld. defence counsel that he had quarrelled with other security guards in which he sustained injuries or that in order to save his colleagues, he had filed a false complaint against the accused, who used to pick garbage in that area. The said suggestions have been denied categorically by the complainant.
21. It is to be kept in mind, that no injured would let Nisha the real culprit escape Scot-free, to falsely implicate some other Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 13 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:34:35 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan person. It is also human nature that if a person is given a life threatening injury with a wire cutter on his head, as in the instant case, the injured would not let the real culprit and the assaulter go Scot-free. Further more, it is to be noted that in one breath, Ld. defence counsel has put a suggestion that the complainant had a quarrel with other security guards, wherein he sustained injuries and in the said breath, he suggested that he wanted to save his said fellow guards / colleagues. However, there cannot be any motive to falsely implicate the accused, with whom he has no previous enmity and they both were unknown to each other. In case Abdul Sayed V. State of MP, (2010) 10 SCC 259, to explain the reliability of injured witnesses, it was held that :
"Where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant (s) in order to falsely implicate someone".
22. The presence of the injured and the accused at the spot is not denied. It is not disputed on behalf of the accused that complainant Jai Pratap was working as supervisor of guards and was posted and present at the relevant time in the society i.e. RU Block, Pitampura, which the place of occurrence. As regards the identity and presence of the Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 14 of 29 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:34:42 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan accused, he was apprehended at the spot itself by the residents of the society and thereafter he was taken to police station, where he was arrested by the police after registration of FIR.
23. Accused was duly identified by the complainant as well as PW6 Dheeraj Mishra, who also came to the spot after the incident, on hearing commotion and made a PCR call. It is also not in dispute that even PW6 Dheeraj Mishra and accused Karan were also unknown to each other.
24. Ld. counsel for accused has further contended that the alleged co-accused and the plastic katta / bag, which was allegedly containing the stolen copper wire, could not be traced out. It is to be noted that though the charge sheet was also filed under section 303 (2) BNS, but at the time of framing of charge, the accused was discharged for the offence punishable u/s 303(2) r/w section 3 (5) BNS, as there was no evidence on record of theft that the accused persons without consent have removed the belongings from the possession of some person. As such, in the present trial the accused is facing trial only for causing injuries to the complainant and therefore the said contention raised on behalf of the accused that the alleged plastic katta / bag was not recovered, does not hold good.
25. However as regards the recovery of Weapon of Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 15 of 29 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:34:50 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan offence i.e. wire cutter, PW 3 Jai Pratap, PW 7 HC Sunil and PW 8 ASI Santosh Kumar have duly proved the recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused from RU Block Park, Pitampura, Delhi. During grilling cross examination of the said three witnesses, nothing could surface on record to disbelieve their testimony on this aspect. The prosecution has duly proved on record the wire cutter as Ex. P-1, sketch of the same as Ex. PW 3/D (also as Ex. PW 7/C) and seizure memo of the same as Ex. PW 7/B.
26. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that no public witnesses was joined in the investigation by the IO when the alleged recovery of weapon of offence was made or that no videography or photography of the proceedings was made. PW 8 ASI Santosh Kumar in his cross examination deposed that he met the injured at around 9.05 PM and they had reached at the spot at around 10.00 PM. He made efforts to join the residents in the investigation after reaching at the spot, but no one, including RWA officials, was available at that time. He did not note down the names of the persons, who he had requested to join the investigation. He volunteered that no one told his name to him.
27. For want of public / independent witnesses only at the time of recovery of weapon of offence, prosecution case Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 16 of 29 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:34:57 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan cannot be rejected. I place reliance upon Ambika Prasad Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 2000 (2) SCC 646, wherein it was observed that "It is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. The attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes is indifferent. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court. It is therefore not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor is it proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable."
28. The absence of public witnesses during the recovery of a weapon does not automatically invalidate the recovery or the testimony of police witnesses. While ideally, independent public witnesses should be present, their non- joining isn't fatal to the prosecution's case, especially if the police witnesses' testimony is credible and inspires confidence. Courts often scrutinize the evidence of police witnesses closely, but their testimony isn't automatically rejected simply because they are police officers. If the testimony of police officers can be corroborated by other evidence or circumstances, it strengthens the prosecution's case. Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 17 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:35:05 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan
29. It is also to be seen that the wire cutter / weapon of offence was found with blood stains and the same was sent to FSL along with blood sample of injured, for expert opinion. The FSL result dated 15.01.2025 Ex. C-2, has since been received, which reads as under :
"Result :
1. Human (male) DNA profiles were generated from the source of exhibits '1' & '2'.
2. Alleles of the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '2' are accounted in the alleles of the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '1'.
Conclusion.
DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits is sufficient to conclude that DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '2' is matching with the DNA profiles generated from the source of exhibit '1'.
Herein above Exhibit '1' is the wire cutter having brown stains said to be weapon of offence and Exhibit '2' is Blood sample in a tube, stated to be of injured.
30. As such, from the FSL report dated 15.01.2025, it is clear that the blood stains found on the recovered weapon of offence, belonged to the injured. During cross examination of Nisha PW 8 ASI Santosh Kumar, a suggestion was given to him to the Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 18 of 29 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:35:13 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan effect that nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused or that the cutter was handed over by the complainant to him after staining the same with his blood or that the cutter was planted upon the accused. The said suggestion was denied by PW 8. As discussed above, the defence has failed to ascribe any reason for false implication of the accused at the hands of the complainant or the police.
Injuries sustained by injured.
31. As per the MLC Ex. C-1 of the injured prepared on 07.07.2024 at 3.10 PM, at BSA Hospital, on local examination, five fresh injuries were found on his persons i.e.
1. Fresh lacerated wound of 2 cm x 0.5 cm.
2. Fresh lacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 0.3 cm over part of left parietal region of head.
3. Fresh abrasion with laceration and surrounding bruises 2 cm x 2cm with imprint of human teeth over right shoulder.
4. Fresh abrasion 1 cm x 2 cm at rim of bruises 6 cm x 4 cm with imprint of human teeth over back of upper front of right arm.
5. Tenderness over thumb of left hand.
On perusal of x-ray skull and hand, no bony Nisha fracture was found and nature of injury has been opined to be Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 19 of 29 Date: 2025.12.23 16:35:19 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan simple by the doctor concerned.
32. In view of the same, the prosecution, with the help of the material witnesses and the corroboratory evidence of the police officials, witnesses from FSL and the doctor concerned, is able to prove its case against the accused that it was he, who along with his associate (not arrested) caused the said injuries to the complainant, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
OFFENCE U/S 3(5) BNS (34 IPC)
33. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offence that he along with his co-accused Ganje in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to the complainant. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 3(5) BNS (34 IPC) and the legal position on the same.
"Section 3 : General Explanations :
1....
2....
3....
4....
5. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
34. It is clear that Section 3 (5) BNS (34 IPC) is not a Nisha penal section in itself. It defines the common intention, when Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 20 of 29 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:35:26 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan more than one person commits a crime, who share the intention qua the offence committed. In such cases this section is applied along with the substantive offence. The offence, in the present case, was committed with common intention as per the allegations, which manifested in the acts attributed to the accused persons, therefore, Section 3(5) BNS (34 IPC) was applied accordingly.
35. Under Section 3(5) BNS (34 IPC), only those who participate in a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention are liable; if two of four people in a sudden argument turn violent while the other two do not participate, the non- participating individuals can be acquitted if there is no evidence of their common intention or participation.
36. Section 3(5) BNS (34 IPC) establishes joint liability for acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, requiring both the actual commission of the act and proof of shared intention among all accused. The courts have consistently held that mere presence at the scene does not make a person liable under Section 34; active or overt participation is required, or at least some act (including an omission) in furtherance of the common intention. If an accused simply harbors a similar intention but does not act on it during the incident, Section 34 does not apply. Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 21 of 29 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:35:34 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan
37. However, in the case in hand, it remained the uncontroverted testimony that the complainant / witness has pointed out towards the accused Karan and correctly identifying him stated that he was the person who had caused injuries on his head at the time of incident with the cutter.
Offence u/s 109 BNS
38. The accused has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 109 BNS (307 IPC). For ready reference, Section 109 BNS (307 IPC) is being reproduced herein below :
"Section 109. 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 imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
39. Intention, knowledge and motive are the most important aspects under criminal law in determination of the consequences of various acts. Evidently, from the bare reading Nisha of Section 307 IPC, these aspects are vital in the instant case Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 22 of 29 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:35:42 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan too. As such, a brief legal position concerning these words and how these should be read and interpreted is given herein below:-
Intention - "Criminal intention" simply means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal law without just cause or excuse. The intention of the accused to produce a particular consequence shows his intention to do that act. An act is intentional if it exists in idea before it exists in fact, the idea realizing itself in the fact because of the desire by which it is accompanied. The word 'intent' does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor is it used as a synonym for 'motive'. Where the Legislature makes an offence dependent on proof of intention, the court must have proof of facts sufficient to justify it in coming to the conclusion that the intention existed. No doubt one has usually to infer intention from conduct, and one matter that has to be taken into account is the probable effect of the conduct. But that is never conclusive. As a general rule, every sane man is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and this presumption of law will prevail unless from a consideration of all the evidence the court entertains a reasonable doubt whether such intention existed. This presumption, however, is not conclusive nor alone sufficient to justify a conviction and should be supplemented by other testimony. An accused must be judged to have the intention that is indicated by his proved acts. The burden of proving guilty intention lies upon the prosecution where the intent is expressly stated as part of the definition of the crime.
Criminal intent as a psychological fact has to be Nisha
Sahay
proved even in regard to offences under the Special Saxena
Digitally signed
by Nisha Sahay
Saxena
FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 23 of 29 Date: 2025.12.23
16:35:48 +0530
SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan
Acts unless it is specifically ruled out or ruled out by necessary implication.
Knowledge - Where knowledge of a fact is an essential ingredient of an offence it must be distinctly proved. There are certain offences in the Penal Code where the accused who commits those offences is punished irrespective of the fact whether he had knowledge or not. Where a particular act is forbidden the question of knowledge becomes immaterial.
Motive - Motive is not to be confused with intention. If a man knows that a certain consequence will follow from his act, it must be presumed in law that he intended that consequence to take place although he may have had some quite different ulterior motive for performing the act. The motive for an act is not a sufficient test to determine its criminal character. By motive is meant anything that can contribute to give birth or even to prevent, any kind of action. Motive may serve as a clue to the intention; but although the motive be pure, the act done under it may be criminal. Purity of motive does not purge an act of its criminal character. An act which is unlawful cannot, in law, be excused on the ground that it was committed from a good motive.
Motive, though not a sine qua non for bringing the offence home to the accused, is relevant and important on the question of intention.
Though the prosecution is not bound to prove motive for the crime, absence of any motive is a Nisha factor which may be considered in determining the Sahay guilt of the accused. Thus, if there is really no Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 24 of 29 16:35:54 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan motive and the crime is completely motiveless then that circumstance can be taken into consideration along with the evidence of prior insanity. But if the actual evidence as to the commission of the crime is believed, then no question of motive remains to be established. It is not the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove motive with which a certain offence has been committed. It is sufficient if the prosecution proves by clear and reliable evidence that certain persons committed the offence, whatever the motives may be which induced them to commit that offence. For, motive is a fact very often within the special knowledge of the person doing the act and thus it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain the motive in a given case but that does not mean that the offence was not committed.
The question of motive is not material where there is direct evidence of the acts of the accused and the acts themselves are sufficient to disclose the intention of the actor. But in cases of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive is a factor in favour of the accused.
40. In view of the legal proposition detailed above, the facts of the present case are required to be tested in order to ascertain the culpability of accused Karan for the offence u/s 109 BNS (307 IPC), with which he is charged.
41. Ld. Prosecutor for the State submitted that though the nature of injury is simple, it is injury alone which is not Nisha Sahay material and what is material is the intention and knowledge, Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 25 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:36:01 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan which is to be inferred from the locus of injury, which is the parietal region of head of injured
42. In order to prove offence under Section 307 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the injury was caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of accused would have amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder. In this context, in a case reported as Ramesh V State 2010 (I) JCC 796, our Hon'ble High Court altered conviction from 308/34 IPC to 323/34 IPC holding that assault was not premeditated and merely because an injury was found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to commit culpable homicide.
43. Under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), when a person is charged with one offence, he can be convicted of any minor offence that the facts proved constitute, even if not specifically charged.
44. In a case reported as Raju @ Rajpal and others V State of Delhi 2014 (3) JCC 1894, Hon'ble Delhi High Court altered the conviction from Section 308 IPC to 323/34 IPC holding that the nature of injuries were simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 26 of 29 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:36:09 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan death. In Ashok Kumar and another V State of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 17/2011 decided on 20.02.2015 too, Hon'ble High Court altered the conviction of Section 308 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and held that injuries were opined by the doctor as simple caused by a blunt object. Nature of injuries is not such which will be sufficient to indicate that the appellants had any intention or knowledge that by this act they would have caused death of complainant.
45. Issue which arises for consideration is whether the act of accused in causing injuries on the person of the victim, attracts ingredients of offence under Section 307 IPC. In order to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC it is to be proved that the said act was committed by the accused with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder and that the offence was committed under such circumstances that if the accused, by that act, had caused death, he would have been guilty of murder. The intention or knowledge on the part of the accused, is to be deduced from the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of the body where such injuries were suffered.
46. As far as the 'knowledge' is concerned, the court Nisha finds that attack upon the injured Jai Pratap by accused Karan Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 27 of 29 Date:
2025.12.23 16:36:16 +0530SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan was an outcome of incandescent and heated emotions, rather than any intention or knowledge that his act might cause death of victim. It is to be kept in mind that when the accused found himself in difficult situation of being caught by complainant with alleged stolen copper wire, in order to get rid of him, he along with his associate assaulted the complainant. The efforts made by the accused to get out of the difficult situation, transgressed into a physical squabble, and when the wire cutter was used thereafter, it was because the aggressor had lost control over his senses and therefore he resorted to use some object, to continue the assault and the attack upon the victim. The 'intention' to kill the victim was definitely missing in the instant case, as there was no previous enemity between the parties. In the case in hand, the accused and the complainant had an altercation when the complainant checked the plastic bag carried by accused and it was found containing copper wire, whether stolen or not. As discussed above, the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons is simple. The attack took place on the spur of the moment.
47. There was no premeditation. The incident had taken place on a trivial issue. The nature of injuries suffered by the injured is opined to be 'simple'. Injuries were not caused with an intention or knowledge to cause his death. This court Nisha finds that prosecution has failed to establish that the injuries Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 28 of 29 Saxena Date: 2025.12.23 16:36:24 +0530 SC No. 860/2024 State Vs. Karan were caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused his death, the act of accused would have been amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder, and thus the ingredients of Section 109 BNS (307 IPC) are not attracted and the present case falls within the ambit of section 118(1) BNS (324 IPC).
48. In the result, the court is of the opinion that in the present case, offence u/s 109 BNS (307 IPC) is not proved. However, it stands proved on record that it was the accused, who caused simple injuries to the injured, and therefore, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 118(1) BNS (324 IPC).
49. Accordingly, accused Karan is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 118(1) BNS (324 IPC) for causing simple injuries to the injured complainant Jai Pratap Singh with dangerous weapon i.e. wire cutter.
Digitally signedNisha by Nisha Sahay Announced in the open court today Saxena Sahay Date:
2025.12.23 the 22nd day of December, 2025. Saxena 16:36:32 +0530 (NISHA SAHAY SAXENA) Principal District & Sessions Judge (N-W) Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No. 371/2024 : PS Maurya Enclave Page 29 of 29