Delhi District Court
State vs Rahid Etc on 14 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
EAST DISTRICT, DELHI
Session Case No.: 189/2017
State Vs : Rahid & Ors
FIR No. : 389/2016
U/s : 307/341/427/34 IPC
PS : Pandav Nagar
CNR No.: DLET01-003690-2017
Date of Institution : 24.03.2017
Date of Judgment reserved: 10.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 14.10.2025
Brief Details Of The Case
Offence complained of or
proved : 307/341/427/34 IPC
Details of accused persons : (i) Rahid
S/o Mohd. Abid
R/o A-75, Shastri
Mohalla, Patparganj,
Delhi.
(ii) Jabid
S/o Mohd. Abid
R/o A-75, Shastri
Mohalla, Patparganj,
Delhi.
(iii) Shahrukh
S/o Yasin
R/o A-74, Shastri
Mohalla, Patparganj,
Delhi.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted u/s 341/34 IPC
Convicted u/s 307/34 IPC
and 427/34 IPC
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.1 of 26
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14
17:19:18
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Rahid, Jabid and Shahrukh are facing trial for commission of offence(s) punish- able u/s 307/341/427/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') on the allegations that on 23.08.2016 in fur- therance of their common intention, they wrongfully restrained Deepak, attempted to murder him and they also committed mis- chief by snatching and breaking his mobile phone.
2. The nub of the prosecution is as follows:-
(a) Upon receipt of DD No. 21B HC Ravinder reached LBS Hospital where he came to know that injured Deepak s/o Arjun had been taken to Max Hospital, Patparganj for better treatment. He collected the MLC of the injured and reached Max Hospital. After taking written permission from the doctor con-
cerned, he recorded the statement of the injured which is as fol- lows:-
(b) I reside with my family at H.No.423, Shastri Mo-
halla, Shashi Garden, Delhi. I am 11th pass and I currently do not do any work. Today, 23.08.16 I was roaming near my house, then at 10 AM I reached at Gobar Chowk, near house of Hansraj, Shastri Mohalla, Shashi Garden, there I saw three boys standing in the middle of the way and smoking cigarette. Those three boys were resident of my mohalla but their names and addresses, I do not know. I told them not to smoke cigarette there, due to which those boys became angry and they caught hold of me and FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.2 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:19:27 +0530 started beating me. They snatched my Samsung mobile phone and broke the same. In the meantime, my mother came there and seeing her, the assailants ran away. My mother and I started re- turning towards our home, then those three boys came back there armed with Dandas (wooden sticks). They caught hold of me and gave lathi blows due to which I sustained injuries on left ear and forehead. My mother raised a hue and cry due to which those boys ran away from there. My mother took me to LBS Hospital for treatment from where my family members brought me to Max hospital for better treatment. Those three boys in fur- therance of their common intention had inflected injuries upon me and broken my mobile phone. I can identify those three boys, if shown to me.
(c) On the basis of the statement of the injured, FIR No.
389./2016 u/s 323/341/427/34 IPC was registered at PS Pandav Nagar. The injured was discharged from Max Hospital on 29.08.2016. As per the doctor, the injuries sustained by Deepak were dangerous in nature. Accordingly, section 307 IPC was added. During the course of investigation statements of wit-
nesses were recorded and various documents were prepared. The names of the assailants were revealed as Shahrukh, Abid and Rahid. They were interrogated and arrested during investigation, Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed.
3. The court of Metropolitan Magistrate took cog- nizance of the offence punishable u/s 307/341/427/34 IPC. After completion of necessary legal formalities u/s 207 of Code of FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.3 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:19:43 +0530 Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC), the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Pursuant to the order of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (East), the matter was fixed for hearing arguments on point of charge. Vide an order dated 23.05.2017, charge u/s 307/341/427/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined eleven (11) witnesses. A complete list of PWs is as under:-
Rank Name of Witness Brief Description PW1 Dr. Suraj Prakash Doctor at LBS Hospital who initially examined Deepak.
PW2 Deepak Kumar Injured.
PW3 Smt. Meera Devi Eye-witness (mother of injured).
PW4 Ct. Vikas Yadav Witness to arrest of all accused per-
sons.
PW5 Dr. Sanjeev Dua Neuro Surgeon, Max Hospital. He
gave opinion qua nature of injuries.
PW6 Dr. Harjinder Singh Supervised treatment of injured at
Max Hospital.
PW7 HC Virender Took rukka to PS and got FIR regis-
tered.
PW8 ASI Ravinder Khokhar First IO, Conducted all the investiga-
tion till addition of section 307 IPC. PW9 Dr. Suraj Prakash Proved handwriting and signatures of Dr. Sanjay Kumar on MLC of Deepak.
PW10 HC Anuj Witness to arrest of accused Rahid and Jabid.
PW11 SI Mahesh Singh Second IO, investigated matter after addition of section 307 IPC and filed the chargesheet.
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.4 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:19:59 +0530 Injured Deepak and his mother Meera Devi were present at the time of incident and they are star witnesses of prosecution, thus it is imperative to reproduce excerpts of their testimonies.
PW2 Sh. Deepak Kumar s/o Sh. Arjun Mehto, aged about 23 years, r/o 423 Shastri Mohalla, Shashi Garden, Delhi. ON SA I have been residing at the given address since my birth along with my family members. I have studied upto 11th class. On 23.08.2016, I had come out from my home at about in between 8-9 am and was walking in front of my house, I saw that some boys were smoking in the gali near my house, who were known to me, their names were Rahid, Javed, Shahrukh, all are present in the court today correctly identified. I requested them not to smoke and on this they started beating me with giving slaps. Somebody informed my mother about this incident and she came at the spot and all the said three boys ran away from there. After 2-3 minutes when I was going to home, the above mentioned three boys again came having dandas in their hands and they started beating me with dandas and they struck with the dandas on my head due to which I sustained injuries and blood started oozing out through my ear. Accused Javed snatched my Samsung mobile phone and he had thrown the same on the ground and it was broken. All the above three mentioned accused after causing me had gone away from there. My mother had taken me to LBS Hospital. Police official from PS Pandav Nagar came in the hospital and my statement was recorded in the hospital which is Ex.PW2/A which bears my signature at point A. I was referred to Max hospital from there and I remained admitted there for about 5-6 days in ICU. After some time of the incident, all the three accused persons were apprehended by the police. All the accused persons are known to me prior to incident also as they are resident of same locality.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP wants to cross examine the witness as he is not disclosing complete facts. Heard. Allowed Xxxx by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
All the accused persons had assaulted me in furtherance of their common intention of all with the intention to kill me. On 21.10.2016 I had joined investigation with the IO SI Mahesh Singh and I had gone with him at the spot where he had prepared site plan at my instance. Therefore, I along with him had come to PS and FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.5 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:20:13 +0530 there I had told to the IO that I had inquired about the names of the offenders and their names were known as Shahrukh s/o Mohd. Yasin, Jabid s/o Mohd. Abid and Rahid s/o Mohd. Abid and that the offenders/accused persons were known to me previously also as they are the resident of my locality. It is correct that accused Shahrukh and Jabid had assaulted me with the dandas and accused Rahid was not having danda in his hand at that time and he had assaulted me by giving fist blows and that I had received injuries on my hands and head and that my mother was trying to rescue me at that time and was also crying for help. My statement was recorded on that day also by the IO. It is correct that due lapse of time I have forgotten the facts told by me in my examination and nothing was concealed by me intentionally.
PW3 Smt. Meera Devi W/o Sh. Arjun Mehto, aged about 48 years, r/o 423 Shastri Mohalla, Shashi Garden, Delhi. ON SA I have been residing at the given address since my marriage along with my family members. Deepak is my son. On 23.08.2016, I was present at my home in the morning time.
At about 8-9 am somebody informed me that in the gali in front of my house, some persons were beating my son Deepak. I came out and saw that all the three accused persons present in the court today correctly identified, naamely Rahid, Javed, Shahrukh, were beating my son Deepak and when I raised alarm and cried for help then all the accused persons went away from there. They had also taken away mobile phone of my son Deepak and thrown away the same on the ground which was broken. I was taking my son to our home and after 2-3 minutes accused persons again came there having dandas in their hands and they had assaulted with dandas on the head of my son Deepak and other parts of his body due to which he fell down on the ground and blood started oozing out through his ear. When I cried for help, all the accused persons had run away from there. I took my son Deepak to LBS Hospital where he was medically treated. Police had come in the LBS Hospital and my son Deepak had told all the facts to the police. Therefore, Deepak was transferred from LBS Hospital to Max hospital where he remained there 15-20 days under treatment. All the accused persons had assaulted my son with the intention to kill him. I had told all the facts to the police later on and my statement was recorded by the IO.
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.6 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:20:27 +0530 Upon completion of examination of all witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed on 07.04.2025.
5. Statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused Rahid, Jabid and Shahrukh were recorded wherein all incriminating material was put to the accused persons. They stated that they were innocent, they had not committed any offence and they had been falsely implicated in this case. They also stated that all proceedings conducted by the police were done while sitting in the police station and all documents are forged and fabricated. Defence evidence was not lead by the accused persons. Final arguments in the matter were heard on 10.09.2025.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that all PWs have fully supported the case of the prosecution and their testimonies are creditworthy. He claimed that cogent documentary evidence has also been adduced to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons. He argued that even the Medical evidence duly ties in with the case canvassed by the State. He contended that presence of accused persons at the spot and the acts done by them have been duly proved by the injured and the eye-witness. He claimed that the case against the accused persons is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, so the accused persons be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307/341/427/34 IPC.
7. Per-contra ld. defence counsels submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of injured and the FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.7 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:20:37 +0530 eye-witness. They further argued that the testimonies of Deepak and his mother are not trustworthy as in their cross-examinations they gave prevaricating answers to some questions and also gave replies which were either inconsistent or incongruous with their statements made during investigation. They avowed that Meera Devi was a planted witness. They stated that even no circum- stantial evidence has come on record against the accused per- sons. They canvassed that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons. They prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides and have perused the record. In the present case, accused persons have been charged for commission of offence(s) punishable u/s 307/341/427/34 IPC. Relevant portions of sections 307/341/427/34 IPC are reproduced as under:-
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 imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.-- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.8 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:20:50 +0530 simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.-
Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.-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.
My observations on the facts in issue and the evidence adduced are delineated hereinafter.
9. The case of the prosecution is predicated on the tes- timonies of PW2 Deepak (injured) and PW3 Meera Devi (Deepak's mother). Except these two witnesses, there is no other eye witness of the incident. Regarding the appreciation of occu- lar evidence, the Apex court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde vs The State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 355, held as under:-
25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appre-
ciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumer- ated as under:
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the ap- proach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scruti- nize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the defi- ciencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evi- dence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the wit-
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.9 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:21:06 +0530 ness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the ap- preciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to re- ject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infir- mities in the matter of trivial details. III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possi- ble for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evi- dence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evi- dence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sen- tences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, at- taching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations fall- ing in the narration of an incident (either as between the evi- dence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occur- rence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to ab- sorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to per- son. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a con- versation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a hu- man tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time du- ration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.10 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:21:19 +0530 by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of in- terrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very pre- cise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall ac- curately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross ex- amination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-con- scious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occur- rence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)] The testimonies of PW2 and PW3 read in their entirety, appear to have a ring of truth. Both the witnesses have clearly deposed regarding the incident in which Deepak was injured. They have also clearly laid out the manner in which Deepak was attacked and by whom. There are certain inconsistencies pointed out in the testimonies like non-mentioning of exact time of incident ( 9 AM or 10 AM) by PW2, name of the person who informed PW3 about her son being attacked, the time and place where the initial statement of Deepak was recorded and whether Deepak became unconscious after assault and the time he regained con- sciousness etc., The deficiencies, drawbacks and inconsistencies FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.11 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:21:30 +0530 pointed out in the testimonies of PW2 and PW3, do not go to the root of the matter. PW2 was also partly cross-examined before the undersigned and despite the fact that almost a decade had passed since the incident, it did not seem that he was not giving truthful answers to the questions put to him.
10. An unrealistic, hyper technical approach cannot be adopted merely because there are variations in some aspects of narration of incident by PW2 and PW3, or between the evidence of PW2 recorded in 2018 and 2025. The presence of PW3 at the spot at the time of occurrence is well established from the testi- monies of PW2 and PW3. Also the MLC of Deepak (prepared at LBS Hospital) makes it is evident that he was brought there by his mother. Thus, it does not seem that PW3 was not present at the time of the incident. The testimonies of PW2 and PW3 are worthy of credit despite some infirmities in the same as these in- firmities are not so incompatible with the depositions of PW2 and PW3 to justify jettisoning of their evidence.
11. There is no reason for PW2 to falsely implicate the accused persons. The accused persons were not able to bring forth any circumstance showing that PW2 had falsely implicated them or he had sufficient motive to falsely implicate them. In fact, in his initial statement, PW2 had fairly stated that the at- tackers were residents of his locality whom he could identify by face but whose names and addresses were not known to him. PW2 correctly identified the accused persons as the culprits who FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.12 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:21:42 +0530 attacked him on 23.08.2016. Greater importance is to be ac- corded to the testimony of injured (PW2). It has to be believed that injured would not allow the real culprits to escape. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the observations made by the Apex court in Balu Sudam (supra):-
26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be ap-
preciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on ac-
count of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellish- ments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such con- tradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be dis- carded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evi- dence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
In their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused persons did not make any effort to give a believable explanation about the reasons for their false implication by injured and his mother. They were also unable to explain as to why the eyewitness and the injured deposed against them. The testimonies of all wit- nesses especially the eyewitnesses are by and large believable and they can form the basis of conviction of accused persons.
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.13 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:21:52 +0530
12. Regarding the injuries sustained by Deepak, PW1 Dr. Suraj Prakash testified that he examined Deepak on 23.08.2016 and found (i) active bleeding from left ear, (ii) lacer- ated wound right side forehead 1 x 0.5 cm with large abrasion right elbow 3 x 2 cm, (iii) lacerated wound inner side of upper lip. He referred the patient to surgery department for further treatment and management. PW6 Dr. Harjinder Singh Bhatoe testified that CT scan showed fracture of skull base of patient Deepak. Perusal of Max Hospital treatment papers of Deepak re- veal that he suffered 'Fracture of left temporal bone is seen in- volving its pitrous mastoid and tympanic part with hyperdense likely hemorrhagic fluid collection within the tympanic and mastoid air cells. The fracture is extending into left occipital bone and left parietal bone with soft tissue swelling/hematoma overlying the fracture, mild hemorrhagic fluid collection is also seen in bilateral sphenoid sinuses with thin fracture line extend- ing in anterior part of body of sphenoid bone. Relatively undis- placed fracture of the posterior bony plate of condylar fossa of left temporal bone is seen extending medially to involve the floor of left middle cranial fossa and lateral wall of left carotid canal, hemorrhagic contusions are seen in left temporoparietal lobe adjacent to the fracture site with mild bleed along posterior falx cerebri...' PW5 Dr Sanjeev Dua deposed that the nature of injuries sustained by Deepak as 'dangerous'. He also observed that the injuries could have been caused by a lathi blow to the head amongst other things.
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.14 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:22:05 +0530
13. The accused persons had claimed that PW2 was shifted from LBS Hospital to Max Hospital by his family mem-
bers, in order to get the medical documents prepared as per their wishes to suit their requirements. PW6 and PW9 i.e. doctors from Max Hospital and LBS Hospital were cross examined on the aspect of shifting of injured to Max hospital. PW6 categori- cally stated that the injured was referred to Max Hospital as neu- rosurgery facility was not available in LBS Hospital. He further testified that from LBS Hospital for treatment related to neuro- surgery department, the patients were referred to higher centres like Max Hospital or AIIMS. PW9 testified that Deepak was re- ferred to higher Centre for NCCT Head by Dr. Sanjay Kumar as per MLC. Ex.PW1/A. Thus, there is no substance in the asser- tion that the injured was shifted to Max hospital as per conve- nience of his family members. There is also no evidence on record to show that treatment papers of Deepak have been fabri- cated at Max Hospital or that the opinion given regarding nature of injuries is incorrect.
14. Accused persons pointed out that the dandas al- legedly used in commission of offence have not been recovered and the benefit of this lacuna must accrue to them. Recovery of weapon used for commission of offence is not an essential pre- requisite to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. An accused can be convicted for commission of offence of attempt to murder by relying on other cogent evidence especially the tes- timony of an eyewitness. Reliance in this regard is placed on the FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.15 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:22:16 +0530 decision of Apex Court in the case of State through the Inspector of Police vs Laly @ Manikandan, AIR 2022 SC 5034 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:-
The submission on behalf of the accused that as the original informant-Mahendran has not been examined and that the other independent witnesses have not been examined and that the recovery of the weapon has not been proved and that there is a serious doubt about the timing and place of the in- cident, the accused are to be acquitted cannot be accepted. Merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of PW1. As ob- served hereinabove, PW1 is the eye witness to the occur- rence at both the places. Similarly, assuming that the recov- ery of the weapon used is not established or proved also can- not be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to con- vict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness.
Hence, the ground of non recovery of dandas (used in commis- sion of attack) does not find favour with this court.
15. Another defence taken by the accused persons is that there is inordinate delay in registration of FIR. It is pointed out by the learned defence counsels that the FIR was lodged only at 5:10 PM despite the fact that the incident allegedly oc- curred in the morning in between 9:00 to 10:00 AM. The learned counsels also submitted that during his treatment at LBS Hospi- tal, the injured Deepak was conscious, well oriented and fit for statement, as deposed by PW1 Dr. Suraj Prakash. They adum- brated that the statement of the injured was recorded only at FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.16 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:22:24 +0530 about 4:00 PM or so, thereby giving ample opportunity to the in- jured to concoct a story or to embellish his version of incident. They claimed that the benefit of this deficiency must accrue to the accused persons. Prompt recording of statement of the in- jured and timely registration of FIR go a long way in eradicating the possibility of tutoring and contrivance. Coming to the facts of the case, the DD No.21B was recorded on 10:25 AM. The in- jured was brought to LBS Hospital at 10:25 AM After primary treatment, injured was referred to higher center (Max Hospital) for NCCT Head. As per the treatment papers of Max Hospital, the injured was admitted there at 11:56 AM. The injured was managed conservatively for head injury and his CT Scans of Spine, Head and X- ray of Elbow etc. were conducted on that very day. Moreover, at the time when IO HC Ravinder reached LBS Hospital by then the injured had already been shifted from LBS Hospital to Max Hospital. Considering the time spent in conducting various tests and treatment of the injured, it does not seem that there was undue delay in recording the statement of the victim by IO at about 4:00 PM or so and lodging of FIR. Even otherwise, mere delay in lodging the FIR is not always fa- tal to the case of the prosecution as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu vs The State of Chhat- tisgarh, 2023 INSC 986:-
10. Of course, the delay in lodging an FIR by itself cannot be regarded as the sufficient ground to draw an adverse infer-
ence against the prosecution case, nor could it be treated as fatal to the case of prosecution. The Court has to ascertain the causes for the delay, having regard to the facts and cir- cumstances of the case. If the causes are not attributable to FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.17 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:22:34 +0530 any effort to concoct a version, mere delay by itself would not be fatal to the case of prosecution.
11. In Ravinder Kumar and Another Vs. State of Punjab5, it has been held that: -
"13. The attack on prosecution cases on the ground of de- lay in lodging FIR has almost bogged down as a stereo- typed redundancy in criminal cases. It is a recurring fea- ture in most of the criminal cases that there would be some delay in furnishing the first information to the po- lice. It has to be remembered that law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not ille- gal. Of course a prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would Apren Joseph alias current Kun- jukunju & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela; 1973 (3) SCC 114 2001 (7) SCC 690 give the prosecution a twin advan- tage. First is that it affords commencement of the investi- gation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Barring these two plus points for a promptly lodged FIR the demerits of the delayed FIR cannot operate as fatal to any prosecution case. It cannot be overlooked that even a promptly lodged FIR is not an unreserved guarantee for the genuineness of the version incorporated therein.
14.When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed the court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of time. This kind of unconver- santness is not too uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately think of going to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin of the deceased might take some ap- preciable time to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite informa- tion. Yet another cause is, the persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous information about the incident.
15. We are not providing an exhaustive catalogue of in- stances which could cause delay in lodging the FIR. Our effort is to try to point out that the stale demand made in the criminal courts to treat the FIR vitiated merely on the ground of delay in its lodgment cannot be approved as a legal corollary. In any case, where there is delay in mak- ing the FIR the court is to look at the causes for it and if such causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.18 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:22:41 +0530 version no consequence shall be attached to the mere de- lay in lodging the FIR. (Vide Zahoor v. State of U.P. [1991 Supp (1) SCC 372 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 678] , Tara Singh v. State of Punjab [1991 Supp (1) SCC 536 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 710] and Jamna v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 185 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 348] ) In Tara Singh [1991 Supp (1) SCC 536 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 710] the Court made the following observations:(SCC p. 541, para 4) "4. It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR by it- self cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot ex- pect these villagers to rush to the police station immedi- ately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be ex- pected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giv- ing the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natu- ral in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report."
12. Keeping in view the aforestated settled legal position, let us examine as to whether the delay of more than one year in the registration of the FIR was fatal to the case of prosecu- tion or the prosecution had sufficiently explained the said de- lay?
In the present case, the delay in lodging the FIR has been suffi- ciently explained and no motive is attributable for belated lodg- ing of FIR, so the ground of delay in lodging the FIR does not hold water and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case.
16. To justify a conviction u/s 307 IPC, it is not neces- sary that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. However, the nature of injury caused may be of assis- tance in assessing the intention of the accused persons. The in- tention can also be gathered from circumstances like nature of weapon used, the conduct of accused persons during the incident (words uttered etc.), parts of body where the injury was caused FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.19 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:22:49 +0530 and severity of blows given etc. In the case of Surender Singh vs State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), 2021 SCC Online SC 1135; the Apex Court elaborated the conditions to be satisfied before convicting a person for commission of offence u/s 307 IPC as under:-
18. Before we advert to the factual matrix or gauge the trust-
worthiness of the witnesses, it will be beneficial to brace ourselves of the case law qua the essential conditions, requi- site for bringing home a conviction under Section 307 IPC. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Saleem @ Chamaru & Anr. 1, this Court, while re-appreciating the true import of Section 307 IPC held as follows:
"12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not es- sential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such inten- tion may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any refer- ence at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinc- tion between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the vic- tim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary cir- cumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily in- jury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the ac- cused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the inten- tion or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt." (Emphasis Applied) FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.20 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:22:57 +0530
19. These very ingredients have been accentuated in some of the later decisions, including in State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 26 , Jage Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of M.P. vs. Kanha @ Om Prakash (2019) 3 SCC 605.
In the present case, the accused persons attacked Deepak twice. Firstly they beat him up and went away and in 3-4 minutes they again came back with dandas and gave blows on the head of the injured. Due to this attack, the temporal bone, parietal bone and occipital bone in skull of the injured were fractured. The initial altercation could be categorized as a sudden quarrel but the act of the accused person retreating after the initial attack and com- ing back armed with dandas shows that they returned to the spot with the intention of causing more bodily harm to Deepak. Giv- ing multiple danda blows on head (vital part of body) with such intensity that it caused fracture of multiple bones in skull (dan- gerous injury as per doctor), leads to the irresistible conclusion that Deepak was subsequently attacked by accused persons with the intention to cause his death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.
17. During his testimony, Deepak at one point of time stated that Shahrukh and Jabid has assaulted him with dandas and Rahid was not having danda in his hand at that time and he had assaulted him by giving fist blows. However, it is worth- while to observe that as per section 34 IPC, when a criminal act is done by several persons with common intention then each per- son is liable for that act as if it has been done by him alone. When participation of accused in a crime is proved and the com-
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.21 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:23:33 +0530 mon intention is also established then section 34 IPC becomes applicable. In the case of Ram Naresh vs State of UP, 2023 INSC 1037; the Apex Court observed as under regarding the concept of common intention:-
12. Assistance has been taken of paragraph 26 of the deci-
sion of this Court in Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka1, which is reproduced herein below.
"26. Section 34 IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had par- ticipated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply there should be common intention between the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design or prearranged plan. However, this does not mean that co-perpetrators should have engaged in any discussion, agreement or valuation. For Section 34 to ap- ply, it is not necessary that the plan should be prearranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact as it requires prior meeting of minds. In such cases, direct evidence normally will not be available and in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. This requires an inquiry into the antecedents, conduct of the co-participants or perpetrators at the time and after the occurrence. The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co-assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack, etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are satisfied. We must remember that Sec- tion 34 IPC comes into operation against the co-perpetra- tors because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final 1 (2022) 7 SCC 521 perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/of- fence. A person is liable for his own acts. Section 34 or the principle of common intention is invoked to implicate and fasten joint liability on other co-participants."
13. A plain reading of the above paragraph reveals that for applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co- accused persons which means community of FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.22 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:23:44 +0530 purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence.
14. The aforesaid decision instead of helping the appellant rather supports the prosecution that the appellant was rightly convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC for the offence of killing the deceased as they all had come armed, assaulted him together and thereafter left the place of occurrence to- gether.
15. The decision in Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu vs. State of Punjab2 to the effect that a mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC unless the present accused has done some act in furtherance thereof is of no assistance to the appellant as it is writ large on record as per the evi- dence that the appellant not only had common intention to kill the deceased Ram Kishore but also actively participated in assaulting and giving blows to the deceased Ram Kishore together with the other accused persons. In the present case, the accused persons had developed commu- nity of purpose and common design (to cause death of Deepak or to cause such bodily injuries to him as were likely to cause death), by the time they came back to the spot. Rahid not only shared the common intention of other accused but also partici- pated with them in assaulting Deepak, therefore, he would be also liable for the acts of other assailants as if those acts were done by him.
18. PW2 Deepak had testified that Jabid snatched his Samsung mobile phone and threw the same on the ground due to which it broke. PW3 Meera Devi also testified that accused per- sons had thrown the mobile phone of Deepak on ground causing its breakage. The testimonies of PW2 and PW3 regarding aspect FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.23 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:23:55 +0530 of damage caused to the mobile phone of Deepak is not even sought to be challenged by the accused persons. If a phone is thrown on ground and is broken, then presuming the normal course of event, it can be safely inferred that damage in the amount of Rs.50/- or upwards would have been caused to the phone. Though no bill, photograph etc. of the damaged mobile is produced during trial and the damaged mobile phone is also not produced during trial but the unrebutted testimonies of PW2 and PW3 on this aspect are sufficient to prove the charge of commis- sion of offence by accused persons which is punishable u/s 427/34 IPC.
19. So far as the issue of commission of offence punish- able u/s 341/34 IPC is concerned, neither Deepak nor his mother Meera Devi testified that Deepak was voluntarily obstructed from proceeding in any direction at any point of time by the ac- cused persons. Thus, in the absence of any ocular or documen- tary evidence qua the commission of offence of wrongful re- straint, the accused persons are acquitted of the same.
20. In conclusion, it can be stated with certitude that the actus-reus and mens-rea required to prove the commission of of- fence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC have been duly established. Similarly, there is sufficient material on record to hold that the accused persons have committed an offence of mischief. All the acts were done by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention which developed at the spot. There is not FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.24 of 26 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14 17:24:09 +0530 even an iota of evidence to show that the accused persons re- strained the injured wrongfully. Accordingly, the accused per- sons are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 341/34 IPC. However, they are convicted for the offence(s) punishable u/s 307/34 IPC and 427/34 IPC.
Dictated and announced Digitally signed by ANURAG in open Court on 14th October, 2025 ANURAG THAKUR Date:
THAKUR 2025.10.14 17:24:32 +0530 (Anurag Thakur) Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi This judgment consists of 26 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
Post Script
List of Exhibited documents
S. Nos Exhibit Number Description
1 Ex.PW1/A MLC of injured Deepak
2 Ex.PW2/A Initial statement of injured Deepak
3 Ex.PW4/A Arrest memo of accused Shahrukh
4 Ex.PW4/B Personal Search memo of accused
Shahrukh
5 Ex.PW4/C Arrest memo of accused Rahid
6 Ex.PW4/D Personal search memo of accused Rahid
7 Ex.PW4/E Arrest memo of accused Jabid
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.25 of 26
8 Ex.PW4/F Personal search memo of accused Jabid
9 Ex.PW5/A Report containing opinion on nature of in-
juries
10 Ex.PW5/B1 to Documents examined for giving opinion
Ex.PW5/B10
11 Ex.PW5/B6 & CT Scan reports
Ex.PW5/B9
12 Ex.PW5/B1 to Discharge Summary of patient
ExPW5/B3
13 Ex.PW8/A Rukka
14 Ex.PW8/B Site plan prepared at instance of Smt.
Meera Devi
15 Ex.PW9/A Noting of incharge, MRD, LBS Hospital
16 Ex.PW10/A Disclosure statement of accused Rahid
17 Ex.PW10/B Disclosure statement of accused Jabid
________
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.10.14
17:24:49
+0530
FIR No.389/2016 PS Pandav Nagar State vs. Rahid & Ors. Page no.26 of 26