Delhi District Court
State vs Gaurav Sharma Etc on 17 October, 2025
SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 210/2021)
CNR No. DLNT01-002715-2021
FIR No. 300/2020
Police Station : Swaroop Nagar
Under Section : 308/323/34 IPC
State V/s 1. Gaurav Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma
R/o Kh. No. 16/3,
Gali No. 14, Swaroop Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Lokender Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma
R/o Kh. No. 16/3,
Gali No. 14, Swaroop Nagar,
Delhi.
3. Bablu Shiekh @ Babbal
S/o Ajmer Sheikh
R/o Kh. No. 16/5, Gali No. 14B,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
4. Sameer Sheikh @ Dabbal
S/o Ajmer Sheikh
R/o Kh. No. 16/5, Gali No. 14B,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
.... Accused Nisha
Sahay
Saxena
Digitally signed by
Nisha Sahay
Saxena
Date: 2025.10.17
FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 1 of 33 16:00:00 +0530
SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
Date of committal to 05.04.2021
this court
Date of final 16.09.2025
arguments
Date of Judgment 17.10.2025
Appearance : Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. S.P. Dhankhar, Ld. Counsel for accused
Bablu Shiekh @ Babbal and Sameer Shiekh @
Dabbal and Gaurav Sharma.
Sh. R.S. Yadav, Ld. counsel for accused
Lokender Sharma
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. This case emerges from a neighbourhood quarrel that escalated into a violent confrontation from both the sides, at Gali No. 14, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. The accused persons stand trial for allegedly assaulting complainant Sumit Thakur, his father Naveen Thakur and brother Amit Thakur with baseball bat, bricks, fists and kick blows, resulting in injuries to them.
2. On June 10, 2020, at approximately 8:00 PM, on hearing some noise complainant Sumit Thakur, came out of his house and saw that accused Gaurav had caught neck of his father Naveen Thakur. Complainant rescued his father and took him inside their house. After a while, accused Gaurav along with his co-accused Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 2 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:00:07 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc Lokesh Sharma, Bablu Sheikh @ Babbal and Sameer Sheikh @ Dabbal came and started abusing and beating him and his father with baseball bat, dandas and bricks. When Amit Thakur brother of complainant Sumit Thakur came to their rescue, accused persons beat him too, due to which they all three suffered injuries. Matter was reported to the police. Injured parties were transported hospital for medical treatment.
3. Following the incident, police conducted a thorough investigation. The Investigating Officer recorded the complainant's statement and registered the present case. The accused persons Gaurav Sharma and Lokender Sharma also got registered a cross case bearing FIR No. 300/2021 at PS Swaroop Nagar.
4. Accused Gaurav Sharma and Lokender Sharma were arrested on 11.06.2020. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against them. Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the case and committed it for trial to the Sessions Court. Subsequently, accused Bablu Sheikh @ Babbal was arrested on 16.06.2021 and accused Sameer Sheikh @ Dabbal was arrested on 26.11.2021 and two separate supplementary charge-sheets were filed qua them before the Ld. Magistrate and were committed to this court.
CHARGE Nisha
Sahay
Saxena
5. Charges were framed against all accused persons for the Digitally signed by
Nisha Sahay
Saxena
FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 3 of 33 Date: 2025.10.17
16:00:15 +0530
SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
offences punishable u/s 308/323/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. During trial, prosecution examined twenty witnesses in all. It is pertinent to mention here that no witness has been examined as PW 9 as is reflected in proceeding sheet dated 03.05.2023. S.No Witness Description of testimony
1. PW 1 Sh. Naveen Injured.
Thakur
2. PW 2 Sh. Sumit Injured.
Thakur.
3. PW 3 ASI Sanjay Duty Officer.
Kumar
4. PW 4 Sh. Amit Injured.
Thakur
5. PW 5 Sh. Rakesh Friend and eye witness of incident.
Thakur
6. PW 6 SI Rakesh Joined investigation with IO.
7. PW 7 SI Sudhir. MHC(M)
8. PW 8 SI Harish. First Investigating Officer.
9. PW 10 Dr. Amit Proved MLC of injured Sumit.
Kumar Singh
10. PW 11 Dr. Satish Proved MLC of injured Naveen Kumar Singh Thakur
11. PW 12 ASI Vishal DD Writer.
12. PW 13 Dr. Bharat Proved Medical Treatment Record of Rattan Jintal. injured Naveen Thakur.
Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 4 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:00:24 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
13. PW 14 ASI Naresh Arrested accused Bablu Sheikh @ Kumar. Babbal.
14. PW 15 SI Sandeep Second Investigating Officer.
Kumar
15. PW 16 Sh. Pralay Asstt. Engineer CCTV Division-I, Sen Gupta. PWD, New Delhi.
16. PW 17 Dr. Naresh Proved FSL Report.
Kumar.
17. PW 18 Sh. Anil Proved certificate regarding CCTV Kumar Pundir footage.
18. PW 19 Sh. Ashish Deposed regarding genuineness of Yadav certificate pertaining to CCTV footage.
19. PW 20 Dr. Lokesh Proved MLC of injured Amit Thakur.
Dharwal.
20. PW 21 Dr. Deepak Proved handwriting of Dr. Piyush on Chugh MLC of Amit Thakur.
Documents relied upon by the prosecution :
S.No. Nature of document Exhibit
1. Statement of Injured Naveen Thakur u/s Ex. PW 1/D1.
161 CrPC.
2. Statement of complainant Sumit Thakur. Ex. PW 2/A.
3. Seizure memo brick. Ex. PW 2/B.
4. FIR. Ex. PW 3/A.
5. Endorsement on Rukka. Ex. PW 3/B.
6. Certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act. Ex. PW 3/C.
7. Seizure memos of blood stained clothes of Ex. PW 4/A & Amit Thakur and Naveen Thakur. Ex. PW 4/B. Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 5 of 33 Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2025.10.17 16:00:30 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
8. Arrest memos of accused Gaurav Sharma Ex. PW 6/A & and Lokender Sharma. Ex. PW 6/B.
9. Personal search memos of accused Gaurav Ex. PW 6/C & Sharma and Lokender Sharma. Ex. PW 6/D.
10. Disclosure statement of accused Gaurav Ex. PW 6/E & Sharma and Lokender Sharma. Ex. PW 6/F.
11. Relevant entry in register no. 19 qua Ex. PW 7/A. deposit of case property in Malkhana.
12. Copy of RC vide which case property was Ex. PW 7/B. sent to FSL.
13. Rukka. Ex. PW 8/A.
14. Site plan. Ex. PW 8/B.
15. Seizure memo of baseball danda. Ex. PW 8/C.
16. Seizure memos of blood stained clothes of Ex. PW 8/D Gaurav and Lokender. and PW 8/E.
17. Seizure memo of sealed pullanda received Ex. PW 8/F. from Ishan Hospital.
18. Seizure memo of blood sample of Amit Ex. PW 8/G. Thakur and sample seal.
19. Acknowledgment issued by FSL Ex. PW 8/H.
20. MLC of injured Sumit. Ex. PW 10/A.
21. MLC of injured Naveen Thakur. Ex. PW 11/A.
22. DD No. 12 A dated 16.06.2021. Ex. PW 12/A.
23. Certified copy of DD No. 12 A. Ex. PW 12/B.
24. Medical treatment record of injured Ex. PW 13/A. Naveen Thakur at Ishan Hospital, Rohini, Delhi.
25. Arrest memo of accused Bablu Sheikh @ Ex. PW 14/A. Babbal u/s 41 .1(a) CrPC.
26. Personal search Memo of accused Bablu Ex. PW 14/B. Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 6 of 33 Sahay Saxena Date:
Saxena 2025.10.17 16:00:36 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc Sheikh @ Babbal
27. Disclosure statement of accused Bablu Ex. PW 14/C. Sheikh @ Babbal
28. DD No. 20 A dated 15.06.2021. Ex. PW 14/D.
29. DD No. 52 A dated 15.06.2021. Ex. PW 14/E.
30. Kalandra u/s 41.1.(a) CrPC. Ex. PW 14/F.
31. Arrest Memo of accused Bablu Sheikh @ Ex. PW 15/A. Babbal in the present case.
32. disclosure statement of accused Bablu Ex. PW 15/B. Sheikh @ Babbal
33. Arrest memo of accused Sameer Sheikh @ Ex. PW 15/C. Dabbal.
34. Personal Search Memo of accused Sameer Ex. PW 15/D. Sheikh @ Dabbal.
35. Disclosure statement of accused Sameer Ex. PW 15/E. Sheikh @ Dabbal.
36. FSL Report dated 27.08.2020. Ex. PW 17/A.
37. Allelic Data dated 27.08.2020. Ex. PW 17/B.
38. Certificate qua CCTV footage. Ex. PW 18/A.
39. MLC of Amit Thakur. Ex. PW 20/A.
40. Baseball stick Ex. P1.
41. Blood stained gamcha, one torn blood Ex. P2 (colly).
stained baniyan and one underwear belonging to injured Naveen Thakur.
42. Brick. Ex. P3.
43. Blood stained blue coloured jeans pant and Ex. P4.
one blood stained red colour t-shirt of injured Amit Thakur.
44. CD containing CCTV footage of incident. Ex. PX.
Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 7 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:00:42 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc DEFENCE CASE
7. In their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, all accused persons denied the allegations. They claimed false implication by the complainant in connivance with the police. Rather accused Gaurav Sharma and Lokender Sharma claimed that they have been beaten by complainant and his family with dandas and bricks, and they were also got medically examined and their MLCs were prepared. Accused Gaurav Sharma and Lokender Sharma have also lodged a cross case against the complainant, his brother and father. Significantly, all four accused persons opted not to lead any defense evidence, nor did they enter the witness box to substantiate their claims of false implication.
8. I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. S.P. Dhankhar, Ld. Counsel for accused Gaurav Sharma, Bablu Sheikh @ Babbal and Sameer Sheikh @ Dabbal and Sh. R.S. Yadav, counsel for accused Lokender Sharma 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 including the written submissions filed by the defence.
Analysis, Reasoning & Conclusion.
9. Good neighbors are important because they provide crucial social and emotional support, leading to improved health and Nisha Sahay FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 8 of 33 Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:00:47 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc happiness and a stronger sense of community. They enhance safety through mutual awareness and aid, fostering a more pleasant and resilient environment for everyone. Additionally, good neighbors build trust and connection, combating loneliness and creating a more supportive and fulfilling living experience.
10. However, in the case in hand, as per the prosecution case, a conflict arose between the neighbours, which got violent and the aggressors gave beatings to their neighbour Naveen Thakur and his two sons Amit and Sumit, and have allegedly committed offences punishable under section 308/323/34 IPC. At the outset, the relevant provisions are being reproduced herein below :
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.--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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
11. The attempt to commit culpable homicide is covered by Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (not amounting to murder). A person is liable to be punished if the person has committed any act in pursuance of implementing their criminal intentions, be it any act that fell short of commission of a crime. For the accused to be Nisha punished under this section, the court must be satisfied that he or Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 9 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:00:53 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc she attempted to commit culpable homicide (rather than murder), i.e., if the accused had been successful in carrying out his or her desired conduct or completing the act, he or she would have committed culpable homicide rather than murder. With the use of clear proof, the court must be assured of such an act.
Section 323 IPC. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Constituents of Section 323 IPC
12. Two key elements make up an offence under Section 323:
• Voluntarily: The act of causing hurt must be deliberate. Accidental bumps or unintended consequences wouldn't fall under this section. This means the accused must have had the intention to cause some pain or discomfort. • Hurt: This refers to any bodily pain, sensation, or feeling of uneasiness. It can range from a minor scratch to a more significant bruise or sprain. The severity of the hurt isn't a major factor, but it should be more than just a trivial discomfort.
Culpability of accused persons.
Under Section 34 IPC Nisha
Sahay
Saxena
Digitally signed by
FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 10 of 33 Nisha Sahay Saxena
Date: 2025.10.17
16:00:59 +0530
SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
13. In the present case, all the accused persons have been charged for the offence that they all in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to the complainant, his brother and father.
At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 34 IPC and the legal position on the same.
"Section 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."
14. It is clear that Section 34 IPC is not a penal section in itself. It defines the common intention, when 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.
15. Section 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. Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized that common intention can develop rapidly "at the spur of the moment,"
and if all act together, joint liability arises. However, clear evidence must show that each accused actively participated, even minimally, Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 11 of 33 Saxena Date:
2025.10.17 16:01:06 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc in furtherance of the shared purpose.
16. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has rested its case upon the testimony of the injured persons, who are the star and the sterling witnesses of the prosecution. PW 1 Naveen Thakur deposed that though he did not remember the date of incident, but it was about 2 years ago, when at about 6:00 PM, he was present outside his house and four persons came and started beating him with an iron rod and hockey stick. He further deposed that the said persons were harassing him for the last about 4-5 years, qua which he had made a complaint to the police. They were also asking him to leave the said place, otherwise they would kill him. He further testified that at the time of incident, accused Babbal @ Bablu Sheikh and Dabbal @ Sameer Sheikh had caught hold of him and other two persons namely Gaurav and Lokender were beating him with an iron rod and hockey stick, on his head and face. Accused Babbal and Dabbal slapped his mother as well. After that he became unconscious and later on he came to know that the accused persons had also beaten his sons namely Sumit and Amit. He received injuries on his head, face and waist. He correctly identified all the accused persons, as well as the base ball bat and his clothes comprising of gamchha, one torn blood stained baniyan and one underwear.
17. Request of the Ld Addl. PP to put some leading questions Digitally signed by Nisha FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 12 of 33 Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Date:
Saxena 2025.10.17 16:01:12 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc to the witness as the witness did not remember the date of incident and the weapon used in the incident, was allowed. Thereafter, PW 1 admitted it to be correct that the date of incident was 10.06.2020 and it was lock down at that time. He further admitted it to be correct that the weapon of offence was baseball bat and that he had mentioned it as a hockey stick in his statement due to lack of knowledge.
18. In his cross examination, PW 1 deposed that he had told to the police that he was washing his motorcycle at the time of incident and that the accused Babbal and Dabbal had slapped his mother. However, when confronted with statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., the said facts were not found mentioned therein. He had not told to the police in his statement that 4-5 persons had beaten him with an iron rod and hockey stick. He admitted it to be correct that at the time of occurrence, he was not aware about the beatings given to his sons namely Amit and Sumit, and he came to know this fact, after regaining his consciousness. He denied the suggestion that that he and his sons had firstly beaten the accused Gaurav and Lokender and thereafter, the present incident had happened. He further deposed that at the time of incident, 10-12 persons had gathered at the spot.
19. PW 2 Sumit deposed that on 10.06.2020, in the evening, he was present at his house. On hearing some noise, he came Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 13 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:01:19 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc outside his house and saw that accused Gaurav had caught hold the collar of his father's shirt. He intervened and pacified the quarrel and took his father to the side and also pacified Gaurav and sent him home. After sometime, accused Gaurav, Lokender, Babbal and Dabbal came in front of his house. Accused Gaurav caught hold of his father Naveen Thakur and accused Lokender hit on the head of his father with a baseball bat. While the accused Bablu Sheikh @ Babbal and Sameer Sheikh @ Dabbal caught hold of him and hit him with a brick and danda. When his elder brother Amit Thakur came to rescue him, accused persons namely Babbal and Dabbal also hit him with brick and danda. He received injuries on his leg and there was pain in his head after being hit, while his brother Amit Thakur received injuries near his eyes. Thereafter, some public persons came at the spot and they took them to the hospital. He correctly identified all the accused persons as well as the weapon of offence i.e. one broken brick and the baseball bat.
20. In his cross examination, PW 2 deposed that 20-25 persons had gathered at the time of incident. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital and he had narrated the entire incident to the police. He denied the suggestion that he had brought the baseball bat to beat accused Gaurav and Lokender. He further deposed that the incident had taken place at a distance of 100 meters from the house of accused Gaurav and Lokender. He admitted it to be correct that prior to the incident of the present case, some quarrel Nisha Sahay FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 14 of 33 Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:01:25 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc had taken place between him and accused Gaurav and Lokender, regarding which he had made complaint to the police. He denied the suggestion that the accused Gaurav and Lokender have been falsely implicated in the present case or the injuries sustained by him are self inflicted.
21. PW 2 further deposed that he did not remember as to whether any CCTV cameras were installed near his house at the time of incident. When the accused persons came after 10-15 minutes, he was present outside his house. All of a sudden accused persons again came to the spot. He did not know names of the persons who had removed him and other injured persons to hospital. No criminal complaint/case had been filed prior to the present incident. He was taken to ESI Hospital on a bike and at that time he was in semi-conscious state. He did not know in which hospital his elder brother was taken. He as well as his brother remained admitted in the hospital during night of the same day when the incident took place. His statement was recorded by the police twice, i.e. first in the hospital and second after discharge from the hospital in the PS. His first statement was recorded on the next day during morning hours in the hospital. He cannot tell at what time, his first statement was recorded. He denied the suggestion that he had filed present case against all the accused persons as Gaurav and Lokender had made complaint against him previously.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 15 of 33 Nisha Nisha Saxena Sahay Sahay Date:
Saxena 2025.10.17 16:01:31 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
22. PW 4 Amit Thakur deposed that on 10.06.2020 at about 8 PM, when he alongwith his younger brother was present inside the house, they heard some noises in the street, whereafter his brother Sumit went outside. After sometime, he again heard the noises, pursuant whereto he went outside in the street, and saw that accused Gaurav, Lokender, Samir @ Dabbal and Bablu were beating his father and brother Sumit. Accused Gaurav had caught hold of his father and accused Lokender was having a base ball bat in his hand with which he was beating his father. Accused Samir was also having a danda in his hand, while accused Bablu was having bricks in his hand and they were beating his brother. PW 4 further deposed that when he went to rescue his father and brother, all the four accused started beating him as well. Accused Sumit hit him on his forehead multiple times, due to which he sustained injuries on his eyes and started bleeding. They were taken to the hospital by some public persons. He and his brother were taken to ESI Hospital, where police came and recorded his statement. After medical treatment, he along with the IO visited the spot and he had shown the place of occurrence to the IO. IO had taken into possession one broken brick from the spot. He also handed over his blood stained clothes and that of his father. He correctly identified all the accused persons, the weapons of offence and the blood stained clothes, which were seizeed by the police.
23. Ld Chief Prosecutor sought permission of the Court to Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 16 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:01:39 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc put some leading questions to the witness. Thereafter, PW 4 admitted it to be correct that the accused Sameer had hit danda on the head and legs of his brother Sumit and that all the four accused persons also gave beatings to him, his brother and father with fists and legs as well. He further admitted it to be correct that on 11.06.2020, he and his brother had identified the accused Lokender and accused Gaurav at their house before the police.
24. In his cross examination, PW 4 Amit Thakur deposed that his statements were recorded many times in connection with the present case, once when he visited the spot with the police, once when he had handed over the clothes to the police and once when his MLC was prepared at BJRM Hospital. About 20-25 persons had gathered at the spot. Police had obtained his signatures on the memos at the time of handing over the clothes by him. He did not know as to whether any CCTV cameras were installed at/near the spot or not. He did not remember as to whether he had signed any document regarding the arrest of the accused Lokender and Gaurav. The incident had occurred at the corner of a gali in front of his house at a distance of about 100 meters from his house.
25. He denied the suggestion that the baseball bat and danda were brought by him and his brother and not by the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by him are self inflicted.
Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 17 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:01:45 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
26. PW 4 Amit Thakur further deposed that prior to the present FIR, 5-6 complaints were filed by them against the accused persons, but accused Sameer Sheikh and Bablu Sheikh were not named in those 5-6 complaints. Accused Sameer and Bablu were known to him by their faces as they were involved in earlier incidents as well. He did not remember the name of the person who had taken him to hospital on his motorcycle. He was taken to ESI Hospital where he remained till 3:00 am - 4:00 am. From the ESI Hospital, he did not go to any other hospital for further medical treatment. Police had met him at ESI Hospital. The statement of his brother was also recorded at ESI Hospital.
27. Apart from the three injured persons, an independent witness namely Rakesh Thakur was also examined by the prosecution. Rakesh Thakur in his deposition as PW 5 testified that Sumit and Amit are his friends. On 10.06.2020, he had a programme with Sumit to go to a party at around 8 PM arranged by their common friend. When he reached in the gali of Sumit, he saw that there was a crowd in the gali and stampede (bhagdar) like situation appeared there. He saw that Gaurav and Lokender and their other associates were beating with a baseball bat, bricks and dandas to Sumit, his brother Amit and their father. He with the help of locality people separated both the parties, during the course of Nisha which, he had also received minor injury on his back. Some locality Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 18 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:01:53 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc people took Amit, Sumit and his father to the hospital and he followed them. He correctly identified the accused Gaurav and Lokender. He further deposed that other accused namely Bablu Sheikh and Sameer Sheikh @ Dabbal were with accused Gaurav and Lokender present in the gali and he identified them by face, but he did not know their names
28. In his cross examination, PW 5 Rakesh deposed that when he reached in the gali, the quarrel was at the verge of ending. He further deposed that the the police personnel came in the hospital, but he did not remember the timings of their visit. He did not remember whether all the three injured were taken to the same hospital or not. He admitted it to be correct that he had seen the quarrel when it was going on between the parties. He could not specify the weapon carried by the accused persons at that time.
29. The law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt. In Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, Hon'ble Apex Court 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 Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 19 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:01:59 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc 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 other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held 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 Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 20 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:02:04 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc offender guilty of the charge alleged.
30. In the case in hand, all the three injured witnesses and the independent witness Rakesh Thakur, have corroborated each other on all material facts and supported the prosecution case to the effect that all the four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have caused injuries to the complainant Sumit, his brother Amit and their father Naveen Thakur. With minor contradictions, they have specified the role of each accused in giving beatings to them. They have also identified the weapons of offence.
31. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have argued that there is a delay of more than 18 hours in registration of FIR, as the incident in question took place on 10.06.2020 at about 8.00 PM and the FIR has been registered on 11.06.2020 at 14.34 hours. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that in the present case, the DD No. 66 A was recorded on 10.06.2020 at about 21.13 hours, which was assigned to PW 8 SI Harish, who along with PW 6 PSI Rakesh reached at the spot. Both the said witnesses have corroborated each other and deposed that after reaching at the spot, they came to know that the injured persons have been removed to hospital, whereafter they rushed to nearby hospital i.e. BJRM Hospital, but no injured was found admitted there. Thereafter, they both went to BSA Hospital, where they came to know that MLC of injured Naveen Thakur was prepared there and he has been shifted to Safdurjung Digitally signed by Nisha FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 21 of 33 Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2025.10.17 16:02:11 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc Hospital. Both the said police officials immediately went there and came to know that injured Naveen Thakur had undergone some tests and his family members have shifted him to Ishan Hospital, Rohini. IO SI Harish along with PSI Rakesh reached at Ishan Hospital, where the doctor concerned informed them that injured Naveen Thakur was not in a position to give statement.
32. The medical record pertaining to treatment of injured Naveen Thakur at Ishan Hospital Ex. PW 13/A, shows the date and time of his admission in the hospital as 11.06.2020 09.35.28 hours, meaning thereby that it took about 12 hours for injured to first visit BSA Hospital, where his MLC was prepared, thereafter Safdurjung Hospital, where some tests were conducted and finally admitted in Ishan Hospital. Both the said police officials were following him continuously the entire night and made their best efforts to meet and record the statement of injured.
33. Finally, when injured Naveen Thakur was declared unfit for statement, both said police officials turned towards ESI Hospital, where another injured Sumit Thakur was admitted. PW 8 IO SI Harish immediately recorded the statement of complainant Sumit, prepared the rukka and got registered the present FIR.
Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Date:
Saxena 2025.10.17 16:02:16 +0530 FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 22 of 33 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
34. No doubt, delay in lodging of the FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration and a delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, but if there is any delay and the prosecution is able to satisfactorily explain the same, such delay does not prove fatal to the prosecution case. If the informant takes a long time to file a FIR and the reason for the delay is clear, there will be no suspicion of the delay, and the case will proceed as if it was filed immediately. However, if the delay is unexplainable, suspicion of embellishment, fabrication, or exaggeration of facts will arise.
35. In the present case, there seems to be sincere efforts having been made by the police to meet the injured as soon as possible, but since the injured was being transported from one hospital to another, the police could not come in touch with him.
And finally, when the IO was able to meet the injured Naveen Thakur, he was declared unfit for statement. It is also not in dispute that after the incident in question, injured Naveen Thakur and complainant Sumit did not meet each other as they were admitted in different hospitals, but their corroboration with each other, is indicative of the fact that the complaint made by the complainant is not suffering from embellishment and exaggeration. In view of the Nisha same, the court is of the considered opinion that the delay in lodging Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 23 of 33 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:02:23 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc the FIR has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution and as such the said delay does not create any doubt of embellishment and exaggeration of facts.
36. The next contention raised on behalf of the accused persons is that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which go to the root of the matter, in as much as PW 1 Naveen Thakur has deposed that he was beaten by an iron rod and a hockey stick, and it was only after he was put leading questions by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW 1 deposed that it was a baseball bat and not the hockey stick.
37. It is to be noted that the injured Naveen Thakur was aged about 50 years at the time of incident in question and is not an athlete. It cannot be expected from a semi literate middle aged person of rural background to exactly differentiate between a baseball bat and a hockey stick, especially when in a quarrel, he is being beaten by it. The said fact has been endorsed by PW 1 Naveen Thakur himself, when he admitted it to be correct that weapon of offence was a baseball bat and he had mentioned it as hockey stick due to lack of knowledge. Further more, it is to be noted that both the other injured have specifically deposed that the weapon of offence used by the accused person to hit on the head of their father Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 24 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:02:29 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc Naveen Thakur, was the baseball bat.
38. Further more, it is to be noted that during cross examination of PW 2 and PW 4, suggestion was put to them that the baseball bat was brought by them and not by accused persons. The said suggestion was denied specifically by both the said witnesses. However, the said suggestion put to PW 2 and PW 4 on behalf of accused persons, make it clear that it was baseball bat which was used in the quarrel.
39. It is to be kept in mind that the incident took place on 10.06.2020, while the testimony of the witnesses was recorded in the court after more than two years, and therefore each and every detail of the incident cannot be churned out by the witnesses out of their memory with exactitude and precision, they being prone to human lapses. Rather, each and every miniscule detail, if churned out by rote, would only indicate that the witnesses have been tutored to some extent, which is not so, in the case in hand. In principle, all the injured person as well as the said eye witness (PW 5) have stood the test of a grilling and lengthy cross-examination and pointed at the accused persons and identified them as being the persons, who had assaulted the injured persons on the fateful day of 10.06.2020.
Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 25 of 33 2025.10.17 16:02:37 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc
40. In case State of MP Vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414, it was held that "the evidentiary value of testimonies of injured witnesses rests on a high pedestal and unless cogent reasons exist to discard their testimonies, 'minor discrepancies' do not corrode the credibility of an otherwise acceptable evidence."
41. In Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722, it was observed as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labeled as omissions or contradictions."
42. The next contention raised on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for accused persons is that as per prosecution many public persons were present at the spot but no public witness has been joined in investigation. Ld. counsel for the accused persons have further argued that Ram Kishan Sharma, who allegedly took the injured Naveen Thakur to BSA Hospital, has also not been examined by the prosecution. It is to be kept in mind that ordinarily, the public at large is disinclined to come forward to become witnesses in a criminal case. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the court Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 26 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:02:48 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc finds the evidence of other witnesses trustworthy and reliable, the court can believe and act upon the same.
Medical and Forensic Evidence.
43. As per MLC Ex. PW 10/A pertaining to injured Sumit, he was brought to the hospital by his brother Amit. Injured Sumit had sustained small abrasion on both lower limb and swelling abrasion over right side of head. Thereafter, the patient was got admitted in hospital under surgery department for further evaluation and management. As per MLC, requisite X-rays could not be conducted as the machine was out of order and consequently the nature of the injuries could not be opined, especially because the patient / injured absconded within 10 hours. PW 10 Dr. Amit Kumar Singh admitted it to be correct that the injuries sustained by patient Sumit could be caused by falling on any hard object.
44. On the date of incident i.e. 10.06.2020, injured Amit was not got medically examined, rather he was got medically examined on 14.06.2020 at BJRM Hospital vide MLC Ex. PW 20/A, as per which on his local examination, tenderness over back and CLS superior to left eyebrow measuring 1.5 x 1.0 cm were found. The patient was referred to Ortho Department for further treatment and management. PW 20 Dr. Lokesh Dharwal, CMO BJRM Hospital in his cross examination deposed that there is no possibility of causing self injuries on the back, however, the other injuries may be self Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 27 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:02:59 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc inflicted. He further deposed that it is possible that the injuries on the back may be caused by a slip / fall.
45. Injured / patient Naveen Thakur was initially brought to BSA Hospital, where he was examined vide MLC Ex. PW 11/A, and on his local examination, six injuries i.e. (i) Laceration of size 3 x 0.1 x 0.5 cm over right cheek, (ii) Laceration of size 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm over chin left side, (iii) Laceration of size 6 x 1 x 1 cm over head, (iv) Laceration of size 4 x 1 x 1 cm over head, (v) multiple abrasions all over body and (vi) periorbital swelling right side, were found on his person. Thereafter, the patient was referred to higher center. The nature of injuries sustained by patient / injured Naveen Thakur has been opined to be grievous.
46. PW 13 Dr. Bharat Rattan Jindal, Sr. Consultant, Plastic Surgeon, Ishan Hospital, Rohini, Delhi proved on the record the complete treatment file of patient / injured Naveen as Ex. PW 13/A, and deposed that the patient was operated for multiple facial bone fractures by him on 13.06.2020. Subsequently on 18.11.2020, on the basis of medical documents, he opined the nature of injuries sustained by injured Naveen Thakur as 'grievous'.
47. The recovered brick and baseball bat (both having blood stains) were sent to FSL for expert opinion and as per FSL report Nisha dated 27.08.2020 Ex. PW 17/A, as per which DNA generated from Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 28 of 33 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:03:05 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc the source of exhibit 7a (blood sample in two tubes said to be blood sample of injured Naveen Thakur) is matching with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits '1' ( brick piece having brown stains said to be blood stained piece of brick), '2' (one wooden baseball bat having brown stains said to be baseball stick / danda), '5a', '5b'& '5c' (stated to be clothes of Naveen Thakur i.e. one underwear having brown stains, one cut / torn banian having brown stains, & one gamchha having brown stains) and '6a' (one jeans pants having brown stains pertaining to Amit Thakur).
48. Ld. counsel for the accused persons have argued that PW 11 Dr. Satish Kumar Singh, in his cross examination, on being put a specific question, whether all the six injuries as mentioned in MLC Ex. PW 11/A, could be self inflicted, deposed that "Yes, it is possible that all the six injuries could be self inflicted. Again said, the said injuries may be self inflicted".
49. However, it is to be noted that on being re-examined by Ld. Addl. PP, the doctor concerned PW 11 deposed that he could not comment for sure whether the injuries were caused by an assault by other persons or were self inflicted injuries.
50. The testimony of a doctor that an injury could have been Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 29 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:03:13 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc caused by a fall / or it could be self inflicted, does not mean the injured person's account of being attacked with a weapon should be disbelieved. When doctors say that an injury could be self inflicted or consistent with a fall, they speak about medical possibilities and not about the specific incident. They describe the nature of injuries and probable causes based on their expertise, but usually do not definitively exclude one mechanism in favour of another.
51. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that since the presence of the accused persons and the fact that a quarrel had taken place between the accused persons and the injured persons and that the injuries sustained by the injured persons were fresh and immediately after the quarrel, all the three injured persons were shifted to different hospitals, there was no possibility of injuries being self inflicted.
52. In cross examination of PW 1 Naveen Thakur, a suggestion has been put to him that he and his sons had firstly beaten the accused Gaurav and Lokender, and thereafter the present incident had happened. The said suggestion has been specifically denied by PW 1 Naveen Thakur. However, by putting such suggestion, the presence of the accused persons at the spot at the time of quarrel, is admitted on behalf of the accused persons. It is also the admitted fact that a cross case had been registered against Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 30 of 33 Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2025.10.17 16:03:30 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc the injured Naveen Thakur and his sons, which was pending before this court. In view of the same, it stands proved on record by the prosecution that the injuries were sustained by the injured during the quarrel, which took place between them on one side and accused persons on the other side.
53. Recovery of baseball bat / weapon of offence has been proved by PW 8 IO SI Harish, who categorically deposed that accused Lokender got recovered one baseball danda behind one old wooden TV Trolley, which was kept in the room of his house, and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW 8/C. Except for a general suggestion that the alleged baseballs danda has been falsely planted upon the accused persons, no specific suggestion was ever put to PW 8 that accused Lokender did not get recovered the said baseball bat.
54. As regards recovery of brick, PW 2 Sumit though deposed that he did not remember whether the IO had seized the blood stained broken brick in his presence, but on being shown one broken brick, he deposed that the offending brick was of the same colour. Such kind of broken bricks are difficult to identify for sure, whether the shown brick was actually the same, which was used in commission of offence or any other brick of similar colour. Had PW2 been a tutored witness or wanted to falsely implicate the Nisha Sahay FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 31 of 33 Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:03:37 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc accused persons, he would surely have identified the brick. Such kind of honest testimony on behalf of PW2 inspires confidence. Further, recovery of brick has been categorically proved by PW 8 by testifying that when he brought the injured Sumit to the place of incident, he found one blood stained brick and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B. Not even a single suggestion has been put to PW 8 SI Harish to the effect that the brick was not recovered from the spot in the manner as deposed by PW8. It is well settled law that no cross examination on a particular aspect, amount to admission.
55. In view of the finding given above, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused persons that during a neighbourhood quarrel they caused injuries to the complainant, his brother and his father, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
56. Hence the prosecution through testimony of all the star witnesses have specifically deposed that after the initial altercation, which was pacified, all the four accused persons, duly armed, came back with a common intention to beat Naveen Thakur. During quarrel / beatings, when Amit and Sumit - sons of injured tried to save their father, they were also beaten by the accused persons. Coming together of accused persons at the house of injured Naveen, Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 32 of 33 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.17 16:03:45 +0530 SC No. 210/2021 State Vs. Gaurav Sharma etc with an intention to beat him, infers their common intention to commit an offence. As such, what was the actual role of each accused in causing injuries to the injured persons, becomes irrelevant, as it stands established that all the four accused persons had a common intention and premeditated mind to cause injuries to Naveen Thakur.
57. In view of my discussion above, all four accused Gaurav Sharma, Lokender Sharma, Bablu Sheikh @ Babbal and Sameer Sheikh @ Dabbal are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 308/323/34 IPC. Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2025.10.17 16:03:52 +0530 Announced in the open court today the 17th day of October, 2025.
(NISHA SAHAY SAXENA) Principal District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No. 300/2020 : PS Swaroop Nagar page 33 of 33