Delhi District Court
State vs Desh Raj @ Desu on 6 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 141/2022
CNR No. DLST01-003240-2022
FIR No. 365/2021
PS Maidan Garhi
State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu (Since deceased) & Vishal
U/S 307/34 IPC
06.02.2026
ID No. : 141/2022
CNR No. DLST01-003240-2022
Date of commission of offence : 16.12.2021
Date of institution of the case : 14.03.2022
Name of the complainant : Surender @ Sulinder,
S/o Sh. Vijay Pal,
R/o H.No. B-4, Kundan
Chowk, Bhati Mines, Sanjay
Colony, New Delhi
Name of accused and his address : 1. Vishal,
S/o Sh. Nath Ram @ Nathu
Ram,
R/o A-96, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
2. Desh Raj @ Desu
(already expired)
S/o Tara Chand,
R/o A-96, Sanjay Colony,
Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
Offence complained of against : U/S 307/34 IPC
the accused
Offence for which accused was U/S 307/34 IPC
charged
SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu
FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi
Page No. 1 of 24
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2026.02.06
PANDEY 15:56:38 +0530
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 06.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.12.2021 at about 05.30 pm, near Kundan Chowk, Sanjay Colony Bhati Mines, New Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Maidan Garhi, the accused persons namely Desh Raj @ Desu, Vishal along with CCL 'V' had inflicted injuries on the head and face of the complainant Sulinder with the knife with the intention to kill him.
2. On the basis of information/ complaint recorded vide DD No. 19-A dated 16.12.2021 at about 11.14 am dated 16.12.2021, PS Maidan Garhi, the present FIR bearing no. 365/2021, police station Maidan Garhi dated 16.12.2021 was registered. After the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court.
3. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case committed to this of Court.
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, the accused Desh Raj @ Desu S/o Sh. Tara Chand and accused Vishal S/o Sh. Nath Ram were charged vide order dated 01.09.2022 for commission of offence punishable U/s 307/34 IPC. The accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed for the trial.
SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 2 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:56:44 +0530 4.1. During the trial, the accused Desh Raj @ Desu had expired on 13.04.2023 and the proceedings against him, stood abated vide order dated 01.08.2023.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses namely PW 1/ HC Jitender, PW 2/ ASI Desh Raj, PW 3/ Gulsher, PW 4/ Surender, PW 5/ ASI Satbir Singh, PW 6/ Dr. Manjunath Mulgaonkar, PW 7/ ASI Prem Nath and PW 8/ Dr. Suminder Kaur during the trial.
PUBLIC WITNESSES/ EYE WITNESSES
6. PW 3: Gulsher: He was the eye witness of the incident as per the case of the prosecution. He deposed that he was doing the business of repair of TV at Kundan Chowk, Sanjay Colony, Bhatti Mines in the name and style of Guruji Electronics. He further deposed that he did not know any person in the name of Sulender. He further deposed that the quarrel incidents are quite common in the area of Sanjay Colony. He further deposed that he did not know anything about the present case.
6.1. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the State wherein the witness has not stated any incriminating against the accused. The witness denied the suggestion that he deliberately and purposefully did not depose the true facts of the present case or the statement given to the police during the investigation.
6.2. This witness has not been cross examined on SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 3 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:56:50 +0530 behalf of the accused, however, the opportunity was granted to the accused.
7. PW-4 Surender @ Sulinder: He is the complainant/ victim in the present case. He deposed that on 15.12.2021 at about 05:30 p.m, he was going to electronic repair shop in the market at Kundan Chowk, Sanjay Colony. He further deposed that when he crossed Kundan Chowk and was crossing main road to go to the shop where he had given his TV for repair, the accused Vishal, Desh Raj and CCL 'V' came there and accused Vishal had caused injury on his head with knife whereas CCL 'V' and accused Desh Raj (since expired) had caught hold his hands from behind.
7.1. He further deposed that the accused Vishal had repeatedly hit the knife on his head with the intentions to kill him. He further deposed that public persons present there saved him from the clutches of accused persons and he had run away from the spot to save himself and reached his house despite bleeding from his head.
7.2. He further deposed that the accused Vishal was having enmity with him as he had married his mother namely Sunita in the Court and therefore he was having grudge against him and for this reason he had attacked on him with knife to kill him. He further deposed that his mother, sister and wife had taken him to Safdarjung Hospital in an Auto, where he was medically examined and treated.
7.3. He further deposed that police officials had SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 4 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:56:56 +0530 met him in the hospital in the late night hours and his statement was recorded in the hospital and the witness had identified the same as Ex. PW4/P1. The witness had identified the accused in the court correctly. He further deposed that he had visited the place of incident with the police officials and had identified and explained the same to the police officials.
7.4. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused Vishal wherein the witness had replied that he could not tell the dimensions/ length of the knife by which he was attacked by the accused Vishal. He further replied that he did not know the age of Sunita. He further replied that at the time of his marriage with the Sunita (mother of the accused Vishal), the age of accused Vishal was about 7-8 years. He further replied that he had a daughter from Sunita which was born in the year 2013 who was thirteen years old at the time of his deposition in the court.
7.5. The witness denied the suggestion that the accused Vishal had not caused him head injury with the knife. He further denied the suggestion that the accused Vishal and his other associates had not caused any injury to him.
POLICE WITNESSES/ OFFICIAL WITNESSES:
8. PW 1: HC Jitender: He deposed that on 16.12.2021, he was posted as Constable at PS Maidan Garhi and on that day, upon receiving DD No. 59A qua the MLC, he alongwith ASI Prem Nath went to Safdarjung Hospital SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 5 of 24 RAVINDRA Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:57:02 +0530 where injured Sulinder was found admitted vide MLC. He further deposed that IO had recorded the statement of the injured and IO had handed over him documents and had asked him to get the FIR registered and thereafter he got the FIR registered and had reached to the spot at Kundan Chowk, Bhati Mines.
8.1. He further deposed that crime team was called and they had inspected the spot and had lifted the exhibits from the spot and IO had sealed the exhibits in a pullanda with the seal of 'PK' and the witness had identified the same as Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that complainant had also arrived at the spot and IO had prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and the witness had identified the same as Ex. PW1/B. 8.2. He further deposed that upon information from secret informer with the IO about the offenders that they were present at Ram Lila Ground, he went to Ram Lila Ground where upon pointing out and identification of secret informer, all the three offenders namely Vishal, Desh Raj @ Deshu (since expired) and CCL 'V' were arrested and their personal search were conducted and memos were prepared and the witness had identified the same as Ex. PW1/C to Ex. PW1/H. 8.3. The witness had correctly identified the accused Vishal in the court during his examination. He further deposed that IO had also recorded disclosure statements of both the accused persons and the witness had SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 6 of 24 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2026.02.06 15:57:08 +0530 identified the same as Ex. PW1/I and Ex. PW1/J. He further deposed that the accused Vishal got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife in pursuance to his disclosure statement and IO had prepared the scaled sketch of the knife and witness had identified the same as Ex. PW1/K. 8.4. He further deposed that IO had also sealed the recovered knife with seal of 'PK' and seized the same vide seizure memo and the witness had identified the same as Ex. PW1/L. He further deposed that the accused persons were sent to Lock Up and case property was deposited in malkhana.
8.5. The witness had identified the case property correctly i.e. one knife besides one torn cloth parcel bearing FSL detail and mark as Parcel No. 2 bearing case detail and seal impression of PK duly sealed with the seal of SRK FSL CH.PURI ND as Ex. PW1/P1 in the Court during his examination.
8.6. He had further identified another case property correctly i.e. one blood stained navy blue colour shawl besides one torn cloth parcel bearing case and FSL detail and mark as Parcel No. 1 duly sealed with the seal of SRK FSL CH. PURI ND as Ex. PW1/P2 in the Court during his examination.
8.7. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused wherein the witness had replied that he did not remember the time when the injured was discharged from the hospital in this case. He further replied that the size of SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 7 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:57:16 +0530 blade of the recovered knife was around 12 cms. He further replied that no public person was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of the knife. He further replied that the knife was recovered from the kachhe road.
8.8. The witness had denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation with the IO or that he had signed all the memos while sitting in the police station at the instance of the IO at later stage.
9. PW 2: ASI Desh Raj: He deposed that on 16.12.2021, while working as Duty Officer, he had registered the FIR on the basis of rukka received through Ct. Jitender which was sent by ASI Prem Nath and the witness had identified the same as Ex. PW2/P1, endorsement as Ex. PW2/P2 and Certificate U/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act issued by him as Ex. PW2/P3. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, the investigation was entrusted to ASI Prem Nath.
9.1. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused, however, opportunity was granted to the accused.
10. PW-5 SI Satbir Singh: He deposed that on 21.01.2022, he was posted as SI at PP Bhati Mines under the PS Maidan Garhi and on that day the further investigation of the case was marked to him. He further deposed that he had collected and verified the age proof of the alleged accused 'V' who was discovered to be a minor at the time of offence and he had conducted the separate investigation SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 8 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 15:57:24 +0530 qua the CCL 'V' and filed his final report before the JJB as per rules.
10.1. He further deposed that the exhibits of this case were sent to RFSL, Chanakyapuri through Ct. Sandeep vide Road Certificate and he had recorded the statement of the owner of the TV Shop Gulsher. The witness further deposed that he had obtained the opinion on the nature of injury on the MLC of the injured. The witness had correctly identified the original MLC of the injured as Ex. PW6/P-2 and he further stated that he has sent the copy of the said MLC to Safdarjung Hospital for obtaining the opinion.
10.2. He further deposed that as per the MLC, the concerned Doctor Ayush Arya opined that the nature of the injury was grievous caused by blunt object and he had filed the said copy of MLC in the Court and the same was identified by the witness as Ex. PW5/P1. He further deposed that he had recorded the statement of witnesses and had prepared the chargesheet and had filed the same in the Court. He had identified the accused Vishal during his examination in the court.
10.3. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused, however, opportunity was granted to the accused.
11. PW 6: Dr. Manjunath Mulgaonkar: He deposed that on 15.12.2021, he was working as Senior Resident in the Department of General Surgery and was posted in SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 9 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 15:57:30 +0530 Casualty Department in Safdarjung Hospital and on that day, one patient namely Sulender S/o Vijay Pal was brought with alleged history of physical assault at around 05:30 p.m. on 15.12.2021 at Bhati Mines, Sanjay Colony, New Delhi and he was having complaint of stab injury over his head. He further deposed that the patient was examined in his supervision by Dr. Rahul Kumar, Jr. Resident and as per the local examination of the patient, the following injuries were found on the person of the injured:-
i) Clean lacerated wound 6x2 cms on head frontal area right side,
ii) Clean lacerated wound 1x0.5 cm, on the left side frontal area of the head,
iii) Incisional wound 5x0.2 cms on index finger of right hand,
iv) Incise wound 0.5x1 cms over right deltoid region and
v) Incisional wound 2x0.5 cms over left cheek.
11.1. He further deposed that after examination, the patient was referred for the investigation and for further treatment to the Neurosurgery Department and the same was identified by the witness as Ex. PW6/P1. He further deposed that the MLC also bears the signature of Dr. Rahul Kumar and he had identified his signatures as he had seen him writing and signing in course of his official duties.
11.2. This witness was not cross examined on SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 10 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 15:57:35 +0530 behalf of the accused, however, opportunity was granted to the accused.
12. PW-7 ASI Prem Nath: He deposed that on 16.12.2021, he was posted as ASI at PS Maidan Garhi and his duty hours were from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 p.m. and upon receiving of DD No. 59A at about 08:00 -09:00 a.m, he alongwith Ct. Jitender went to Safdarjung Hospital where one person namely Sulender was found admitted in the hospital vide MLC. He further deposed that he had made enquiries from injured Sulender and had recorded his statement and the same was identified by the witness as Ex. PW4/P1.
12.1. He further deposed that he had prepared the rukka on the said statement and handed over the same to Ct. Jitender for getting the FIR registered from the police station. He further deposed that Ct. Jitender went to the police station and had got the FIR registered and thereafter had reached to the spot i.e. Kundan Chawk, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, New Delhi and handed over the same to him with the original rukka and copy of the FIR and the same was identified by the witness as Ex. PW2/P2.
12.2. He further deposed that he had lifted the exhibits i.e. blood stains on the ground and sealed the same in the pullanda with the seal of 'PK' and had seized the same and seizure memo was prepared. He further deposed that he tried to trace the offenders and three offenders namely Desh Raj @ Desu (since expired), Vishal and CCL 'V' were found in the park and they were apprehended. He SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 11 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:57:41 +0530 further deposed that all the three accused persons were arrested and their personal search were conducted and memos were prepared and the same were identified by the witness as Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW/1F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H. 12.3. The witness had identified the accused Vishal in the Court during his examination. He further deposed that the accused persons were interrogated and disclosure statement of accused Desh Raj (since expired) and Vishal were recorded and the same were identified by the witness as Ex. PW1/I and Ex. PW1/J. 12.4. He further deposed that pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused persons, accused Vishal got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife which was sealed in the pullanda with the seal of 'PK' and witness had seized the same and seizure memo was prepared and the same was identified by the witness as Ex. PW1/L and accused persons were produced before the Court and they were sent to JC.
12.5. He further deposed that during investigation, he had also taken the complainant Surender @ Sulender to Safdarjung Hospital for taking blood sample where the Doctor took his blood sample and handed over to him in duly sealed condition with the seal of hospital and the sealed sample was seized vide seizure memo and the same was identified by the witness as Ex. PW7/P1 and the exhibits were deposited in malkhana.
SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 12 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 15:57:47 +0530 12.6. He further deposed that he had identified the case property bearing FSL and case detail i.e. one knife and a torn cloth parcel bearing case details and seal impression of PK produced by MHC(M) correctly as Ex. PW1/P1 in the Court during his examination.
12.7. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the State by Ld. Addl. PP wherein the witness had admitted that he had prepared the site plan on his visit to the place of incident and identified the same as Ex. PW 1/B. The witness further admitted that he had prepared the scaled sketch of the recovered knife and identified the same as Ex. PW 1/K. The witness further admitted that he had recorded the statement of witnesses as and when they took part in the investigation.
12.8. The witness further admitted that blood stained shawl/ stall was lifted from the place of incident and the same was sealed with the seal of PK and seized the same and seizure memo was prepared and witness had identified the same as Ex. PW 1/A. The witness had identified the case property i.e., one shawl as Ex. PW 1/P-2 produced by the MHC (M) in the court.
12.9. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused wherein the witness had replied that the shawl seized by him was belonging to the complainant Sulender. He further replied that he had not made efforts to get the chanceprints on the recovered knife. He further replied that he had made efforts to join the public persons in the SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 13 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:57:52 +0530 investigation while apprehending and arresting the accused persons and at the time of recovery of knife, however, none agreed to join the above proceedings.
12.10. The witness had admitted that he had neither noted down the name and addresses of the persons, nor had served any written notice to them. The witness had denied the suggestion that no written notice were served as he had not requested any public person to join the investigation or that the knife was planted upon the accused to falsely implicate him in this case.
12.11. The witness had admitted that the complainant was not present with them when he had prepared the site plan. He further admitted that neither complainant nor any eye witness were present with them at the time of apprehension of the accused persons or at the time of their arrest.
12.12. He further replied that he did not remember if the accused persons were subjected to the judicial TIP for their identification as offenders. The witness had denied the suggestion that the accused persons were wrongly arrested to work out the case and the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
13. PW-8 Dr. Suminder Kaur: She deposed that on 25.03.2022, she was posted as Sr. Forensic Chemical Examiner (Biology Division), RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi and on that day the exhibits of this case i.e. three sealed parcels were received in the office of Chanakyapuri, New Delhi as SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 14 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:57:58 +0530 per forwarding letter and they were entrusted to her for examination and report. She further deposed that the description of the articles contained in the parcel were written in detail in her report and the biological examination indicated that the blood was detected on exhibits 1, 2 and 3, however, DNA could not be isolated from the source of exhibit 1 due to poor preservation. She further deposed that she concluded that DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 3 (blood gauze of victim) was similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 2 (knife). She further deposed that the remmants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of SRK RFSL CH. PURI NEW DELHI and she had filed her detailed report dated 29.04.2022 and the same were identified by the witness as Ex. PW8/P2.
13.1. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused, however, the opportunity was granted to the accused.
14. During the trial, accused had admitted the genuineness and correctness of the execution of documents as under:-
i) The MLC bearing no. 30388 of the injured Surinder of Safdarjung Hospital containing the medical examination of the injured and opinion on the nature of injuries as grievous caused by blunt object given by Dr. Ayushi Arya and the said opinion alongwith MLC as Ex. X-1,
ii) The medical documents of the injured qua his treatment in Safdarjung Hospital collectively as Ex. X-2.
15. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of the State and SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 15 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:58:04 +0530 the Ld. Counsel for the accused Vishal. I have also gone through the material available on record including the testimonies of witnesses examined during trial and other evidence as produced during the trial.
Arguments on behalf of the State through Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State:-
16.It is argued on behalf of the State the accused Vishal is facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC regarding the incident occurred on 15.12.2021 at about 05.30 pm near Kundan Chowk, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, New Delhi in furtherance of common intention with co-accused Desh Raj @ Desu against whom the proceedings have been abated due to his death and one CCL 'V' for causing grievous injuries on the head and face of the complainant Sulinder with knife and with the intention to kill him.
16.1. It is further argued that the victim Sulinder @ Surender has been examined as PW 4 and he has deposed about the mode and manner in which the present accused Vishal and his co-accused Desh Raj @ Desu (now deceased) and the CCL 'V' had caused grievous injuries upon his head with knife. The witness had further categorically stated that the accused Vishal had caused injuries by using knife whereas, his co-accused and CCL 'V' had caught hold of him.
16.2. It is further argued that the witness has further deposed about the motive behind the commission of SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 16 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:58:11 +0530 offence as he had solemnized marriage with the mother of the accused Vishal. It is further argued that his statement given to the police has been duly proved and exhibitted as Ex. PW 4/P-1. It is further argued that the identity of the accused Vishal is also duly proved during the testimony of this witness and also the fact that his identity is not disputed by him during the trial.
16.3. It is further argued that the accused had admitted the document and evidence under Section 330 of BNSS, 2023 i.e., MLC of the victim and other medical documents and has exhibited as Ex. X-1 and Ex. X-2.
16.4. It is further argued that the knife used in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused Vishal and the same is connected with the injured and injuries.
16.5. It is further argued that the FSL report has also connected the DNA of the victim with the blood stains on the weapon of offence i.e., knife and hence, the weapon of offence is connected with the injured and injuries caused by the accused.
16.6. It is further argued that the investigation has been duly proved by the IO and other police officials through their examination in the court. It is further argued that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
Arguments on behalf of the accused Vishal by Sh. Vijay, Ld. Counsel for the accused:-
SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 17 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:58:16 +0530
17. It is argued on behalf of the accused that the element of motive is missing on behalf of the prosecution against the accused. It is further argued that the complainant had eloped with the mother of the accused much prior to the date of incident and when the accused had grown up, the complainant had falsely implicated him in the present case.
17.1. It is further argued that the weapon of offence i.e., knife was planted during the investigation against the accused. It is further argued that the accused was falsely arrested in the present case when he visited to the police station to enquire about the arrest of the other accused persons. It is further argued that the accused is entitled to be acquitted from the present case.
THE REASON FOR DECISION
18.In order to prove the charge of offence punishable U/s 307/34 IPC against the accused Vishal, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of the victim Sulinder @ Surender / PW 4.
18.1. As per the complaint of the complainant Ex. PW 4/P-1 on 15.12.2021 at around 05.30 pm, complainant went to the TV repair shop in the market near Kundan Chowk, Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines, New Delhi, the accused persons Vishal, CCL 'V' and Deceased accused Desh Raj @ Desu were found present there. It is further averred in the complaint that accused persons had surrounded the complainant and the accused Desh Raj @ Desu had grabbed the complainant from his back side and SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 18 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:58:22 +0530 accused Vishal had caused injuries upon the head of the victim with the knife due to which the victim had received injuries on his head and on his face. It is further averred that the public persons of the locality had saved the victim from the accused persons and accused persons had fled away from that place. It is also averred that complainant got married with one Sunita who was the mother of the accused Vishal and due to the same reason, accused Vishal along with his associates had attacked upon the victim.
18.2. The complainant / victim had appeared in the court as a witness and was examined as PW 4. He deposed on the same line as mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW 4/P-1 and he had narrated the incident as mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW 4/P-1.
18.3. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of one public witness Gulsher and his statement was recorded during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.PC by the IO of the case, in which it has been mentioned that he was running a TV repair shop on 15.12.2021 and on that day, one Sulinder had come at his shop to take back his TV, however, his TV was not repaired by that time and when Sulinder was returning, the incident of beating against the Sulinder had happened at Kundan Chowk, Bhati Mines, New Delhi.
18.4. The public witness Gulsher / PW 3 did not support the case of the prosecution during his examination in the court and he categorically stated that he did not know any person in the name of Sulinder. He also deposed SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 19 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 15:58:27 +0530 that the incident of quarrel are quite common in the area of Sanjay Colony. He also deposed that he did not know anything about the present case. He also denied the fact that on 15.12.2021, the victim Sulinder had visited to his shop to get back his TV which was given for its repair or that victim Sulinder was attacked by certain persons at Kundan Chowk. The witness had also specifically stated that police had not made any enquiries from him. The witness had denied the suggestion that his statement Ex. PW 3/P-1 was recorded by the police during the investigation.
18.5. The prosecution has claimed that the case property i.e., knife was recovered at the instance of the accused Vishal and witness PW 7/ IO ASI Prem Nath deposed in that regard. As per the testimony of PW 7, the enquiry of the case was marked to the IO PW 7 on 16.12.2021 and he got recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW 4/P-1 and got registered the FIR through Ct. Jitender/ PW 1.
18.6. The witness PW 7/ IO ASI Prem Nath deposed that accused Vishal got recovered the knife after his arrest, however, witness PW 7 did not disclose anything about the place of recovery of the knife, mode and manner of the recovery of the knife and circumstances in which the knife was recovered at the instance of the accused Vishal. He also did not make any effort to associate any public person at the time of the recovery of the knife to corroborate the case of the prosecution SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 20 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:58:34 +0530 regarding the recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused. The sketch of the knife Ex. PW 1/K also not find mention about the presence of any public person at the time of its preparation and it only bears the signature of the IO ASI Prem Nath and his associate Ct. Jitender.
18.7. The seizure memo of the knife / case property find mention that the knife was recovered from the back side area of Sanjay Colony, New Delhi on the path / road towards Cressor Zone Pali Faridabad side i.e., from a public place, however, IO did not make any effort to associate any public person at the time of preparation of seizure memo Ex. PW 1/ 2 of the knife and it only bears the signature of IO ASI Ram Nath / PW 7 and Ct. Jitender as signatory of the seizure memo.
18.8. The witness PW 4/ victim deposed during his examination in chief that after the incident, when he was saved by the public persons, he went to his house, while bleeding from his head and from there, he was taken to the hospital by his mother, his sister and his wife. However, during the investigation, the mother, sister and wife of the complainant/ victim/ PW 4 were not associated in the investigation to corroborate the case of the prosecution regarding the circumstances after the alleged incident of attack against the victim.
18.9. The witness PW 4 / victim also deposed that during the investigation, he had visited to the place of incident and had identified and explained the same to the police officials. However, the site plan Ex. PW 1/B did not SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 21 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 15:58:39 +0530 find mention anything about the presence of the victim at the time of its preparation as claimed by PW 4/ victim and witness PW 7/ IO also did not disclose anything regarding the presence of the victim at the time of preparation of the site plan during his examination in the court.
19.The prosecution has explained the motive of commission of offence as accused was having enmity with the victim Sulinder/ PW 4 as he got married with the mother of the accused Vishal and on the other hand, accused explained his defence while saying that he was falsely implicated by the victim Sulinder as complainant had eloped earlier with the mother of the accused Vishal when he was minor. The possibility of the defence of the accused cannot be ruled out as the wife namely Sunita of the victim Sulinder / PW 4 was not associated in the investigation of the case by the IO.
19.1. The public witness PW 3 Gulsher did not support the case of the prosecution regarding the incident dated 15.12.2021 as claimed by the victim /PW 4 Sulinder who had specifically stated the reason for his visit to the place of incident. Hence, the claim of the victim that he had visited to the place of incident in order to obtain his TV which was given at the shop of the witness PW 3 Gulsher, had remained unproved and doubtful.
19.2. The victim had claimed that he got admitted in the hospital after the incident through his mother, sister and wife, however, the mother, sister and wife have not been examined by the prosecution during the trial and SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 22 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:58:45 +0530 neither they were associated in the investigation of the case by the IO of the case. Hence, the claim of the victim that after the incident he went to his house and from there he had gone to the hospital, has remained unproved and doubtful.
20.The recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused Vishal is also doubtful as the place of recovery is claimed to be a public place, however, no public witness was associated at the time of the recovery of the knife.
20.1. The IO/ PW 7 has also not explained the circumstances under which the knife was recovered, neither he deposed anything during his examination in the court regarding the recovery of the knife and he had not corroborated the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused. Hence, the recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21.The prosecution has claimed that the accused Vishal was arrested from the park on 16.12.2021, however, no explanation has been given by the IO PW 7 regarding the circumstances in which the accused Vishal was apprehended and arrested from the park. The arrest of the accused as claimed by the IO from the park has not been corroborated by any other independent evidence or witness. Hence, the arrest proceedings of the accused Vishal is also doubtful and is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
22.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 23 of 24 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2026.02.06 PANDEY 15:58:53 +0530 considered view that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Vishal S/o Sh. Nath Ram is hereby acquitted from the present case and from the charge of offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
23.The accused is directed to furnish the bail bond/ surety bond in terms of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 for sum of Rs. 10,000/- each.
24.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
Announced in the open
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2026.02.06
PANDEY
06th February, 2026 (Ravindra Kumar Pandey)
15:58:58 +0530
ASJ:03/South/Saket Courts,
New Delhi
SC No. 141/2022; State Vs. Desh Raj @ Desu FIR No. 365/2021; PS Maidan Garhi Page No. 24 of 24