Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Bahadur on 24 December, 2025
Digitally
signed by
PRITU PRITU
Date:
RAJ
RAJ
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01
2025.12.24
17:21:10
+0530
EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Raj Bahadur
FIR No. : 473/2014
CNR No. : DLET020020152015
P.S. : Mayur Vihar
Date of commission of offence : 05.08.2014
Name of Informant/complainant : Kitab Ali
Name of accused : Raj Bahadur
Offence/s complained of : s. 341/323 IPC
Cognizance under section/s : s. 325/341 IPC
Charges framed under section/s : s. 325/341 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments: : 20.12.2025
Date of pronouncement : 24.12.2025
Final Order : Convicted for section 325 IPC
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the accused. : Sh. K.K. Upadhyay
Present : Pritu Raj
J.M. F.C.-01,
KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 1
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused Raj Bahadur is facing trial for offences u/s. 325/341 Indian Penal Code 1860. {herein after 'IPC'} .
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case is that on 05.08.2014 at around 05:30 PM when the complainant was returning home and reached near his house's gali, the accused Raj Bahadur stopped him and de- manded money. Upon refusal, the accused started abusing and assaulting the complainant. During the assault, when the complainant raised alarm, his wife Af- sana and other public persons came to the spot and the wife of the complainant somehow saved the him from the accused with the accused running away from the spot. Due to the beatings, the complainant suffered injuries on his right shoul- der and neck. Call was made on 100 number and consequently, the present case was lodged.
3. On the written application of the complainant, Mayur Vihar PS. registered in rela- tion to the above incident FIR no. 473/2014 on 05.08.2014 and, after investiga- tion, submitted the charge sheet on 16.05.2015 against the accused. Cognizance was taken vide. order dated 16.05.2015 and accused entered appearance on 07.10.2015 with provisions of section of 207 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. {herein after 'CrPC'} being complied on the same date. Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:21:22 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 2
4. Charges u/s 325/341 IPC were framed on 11.02.2016 and read over to the ac-
cused , in Hindi, to which he denied the incident and claimed to be tried.
5. During PE, the prosecution examined 08 witnesses. PW-01 deposed that on 05.08.2014, at about 05-5.30 PM, accused met him and asked him for money. Upon refusal, accused pulled his right hand while trying to snatch money as a result of which, the shoulder bone of the complainant got dislocated and he was saved by his wife. Call was made on 100 number and complainant was taken to LBS Hospital by PCR Van and complainant statement was recorded which Ex.PW1/A. Accused was arrested on 16-17.08.2014 from his house vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B and this witness showed the place of incident to the IO who prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/C.
6. PW-02 deposed that on 05.08.2014, at about 05.30 PM, this witness heard loud sounds outside her house and when she came outside, she saw accused fighting with her husband Kitab Ali who was on the ground and accused was beating him. This witness saved PW-1 and subsequently, accused ran away from the spot. PW- 01 sustained injuries on his neck and right shoulder and also made call to Police who took him to the hospital. Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:21:29 +0530
7. PW-03 deposed that on 05.08.2014, this witness was on emergency duty and on receiving DD No. 40A, he alongwith IO HC Subhash Chand reached the spot and FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 3 subsequently went to the LBS Hospital where the IO received the MLC of PW-01 and recorded his statement. Rukka was prepared and handed over to this witness for registration of FIR who left for the same and got registered the FIR at 07.30 pm, returned back with copy of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. Public persons were asked to join the investigation but none of them agreed and PW-03 joined the investigation with the IO for the search of accused but he was not found. The statement of this witness was recorded by the IO.
8. PW-04 deposed that on 17.08.2014, he accompanied the IO to the house of the complainant/PW-1 and at his instance, accused was arrested from the house of Bunty at 09.30 AM, vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Accused was personally searched vide search memo Ex. PW4/B.
9. PW-05 deposed that on 05.08.2014, he was posted at PS Mayur Vihar and on receiving DD No. 40A, he with Ct. Veer Singh went to the spot and later on went to the hospital where he collected MLC of PW-1 and recorded his statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A. On statement of injured, rukka Ex. PW5/B was prepared and handed over to Ct. Veer Singh for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he alongwith injured reached at the spot and prepared the site plan ex. PW1/C and arrested accused on 17.08.2014 vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and personally searched the accused.
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:21:36 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 4 He submitted MLC to hospital which opined injuries as grievous. PW-05 recorded statement of witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.PC.
10. PW-06 deposed that on 05.08.2014, he examined PW-1 who was brought by the Police and accordingly, x-ray 2978 dated 05.08.2014, there was anterior dislocation of right shoulder and PW-06 opined the injury as grievous on MLC no. 13710/14 which is Ex. PW6/A.
11. PW-7 deposed that on 05.08.2014, he examined who was brought by the PCR with alleged history of assault and he found injuries on right shoulder and left arm.
12. PW-8 stated that on 05.08.2014 she was posted at LBS Hospital and examined the x-ray film of PW-1 where there was a fracture of right clavicle and Anterior dislocation of shoulder joint and prepared report which is Ex. PW8/A.
13. PE was closed on 30.11.2024 and SA was recorded on the same date. Accused chose to lead DE. During DE, accused examined himself and one DW Seema as defence witnesses. DE was closed vide order dated 13.12.2025. Final arguments were heard and the matter was fixed for judgment.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:21:43 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 5
14. The primary issue to be decided in the present case is whether the prosecution has been able to prove it's case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused has been charged u/s 325/341 IPC.
Determination qua section 341 IPC S. 341 IPC : Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may ex- tend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
15. Section 341 IPC provides the punishment for wrongful restraint which, as per section 339 IPC, is voluntarily obstructing any person to prevent him from pro- ceeding in a direction in which he has a right to proceed. The complainant and his wife being the sole eye witnesses have been examined as PW-01 and PW-2. The complainant's testimony, however, does not contain any averment regarding the fact that the accused had stopped him from proceeding in a direction in which complainant had a right to proceed. The complainant had merely deposed that the accused met him and asked for money and when the complainant refused, he caught the complainant and tried to snatch the money from him. Similarly, PW- 02 has merely stated that when she came out of the house, she saw the accused fighting with the complainant, who was lying down and the accused was assault- ing him with fists and blows.
16. Hence, the ingredients of section 341 IPC have not been satisfied in the present case. Accused is accordingly acquitted of the charge u/s. 341 IPC.
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:21:48 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 6 Determination qua section 325 IPC
17. Section 325 IPC states as follow:-
S. 325 IPC : Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
18. The term grievous hurt has been defined in Section 320 IPC, which is reproduced below:
S. 320 IPC : The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":
a. Emasculation.
b. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. c. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. d. Privation of any member or joint.
e. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. f. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. g. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. h. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the i. space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
19. In order to successfully bring home a charge u/s. 325 IPC, it is essential to prove the voluntary causation of grievous hurt as defined u/s. 320 IPC. The case against the accused is that on 05.08.2014, at around 05:30 PM,. within the jurisdiction of PS Mayur Vihar, at Devi Ram ka Makan, Chilla Village, he wrongfully restrained the complainant and caused grievous injuries on his person. In order to discharge the said burden, the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses and lead oral as well as documentary/medical evidence. The complainant and his wife have been ex- amined as PW-01 and PW-02, respectively. PW-03, PW-04 and PW-05 are police witnesses where as PW-06, PW-07 and PW-08 are official witnesses i.e. Doctors.
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:21:54 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 7
20. At the outset, there is no dispute as to the identity of the accused. He has been duly identified by the complainant PW-01 as well as his wife PW-02. These wit- nesses have not been cross examined by the accused and there is no reason to not accept their testimony. Moreover, while being examined u/s 313 CrPC, the ac- cused has not raised any objection as to his identity. Hence, the identity of the ac- cused remains un-controverted.
21. Moving further, as regards the ingredients of the offences for which the accused has been charged, while being examined as PW-01, the complainant has categor- ically deposed that on 05.08.2014, at about 05:30 PM when he reached near his house, the accused met him and asked for money. Upon refusal by the com- plainant, the accused tried to snatch money and while doing so pulled the right hand of the complainant causing his shoulder bone to be dislocated. This witness has further deposed that he was somehow saved by his wife i.e. PW-02. The testi- mony of PW-01 has been reiterated by PW-02 Smt. Afsana who has also deposed that at the aforesaid date, time and place, she went outside, upon hearing sounds and abuses outside her house and saw the accused fighting with her husband. She has further stated that the accused was assaulting her husband causing injuries to his neck and his right shoulder. Despite opportunity, the PWs have not been cross examined by the accused. Even otherwise, the testimony of PW-01 and PW-02 are consistent with each other and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:22:01 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 8
22. Moreover, PW-01 is an injured witness and his testimony must be kept at a higher pedestal. In this regard, I am fortified by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Ors. vs. state of Maharashtra (CA No. 1910/2010, DOD 29.03.2023) where it was held that the evidence of in- jured witness has greater evidentiary value unless compelling circumstances ex- ists, their statement are not to be discarded likely. The relevant portion is being reproduced below :
26 When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, 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 account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(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.
23. In the present case, nothing has come in record to discredit the testimony of the complainant and his wife. Moreover, these witnesses have not been cross exam- ined despite multiple opportunities. Their testimonies have in fact being corrobo- rated by the medical evidence. Hence, the factum of accused assaulting the com- plainant and causing injuries to him has been duly proved by the prosecution.
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:22:07 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 9
24. Now, as to the nature of injury suffered by the complainant, it was imperative upon the prosecution to prove that the injuries suffered by the complainant fell within one of the description contained in Section 320 IPC. In this regard, the tes- timony of the complainant regarding assault by the accused and causation of in- jury to the shoulder bone of the complainant is corroborated by the testimony of PW-06, PW-07 and PW-08 i.e. doctors who had examined the complainant. The accused was initially examined by PW-06 Dr. Sushil Kumar who noticed tender- ness and swelling on the right shoulder of the accused, coupled with multiple red small abrasions on his left arm. The accused was referred for examination to Sr. Ortho i.e. PW-06 who has categorically deposed as per the x-ray report no. 2978 dated 05.08.2014, the accused had suffered anterior dislocation of right shoulder which is a grievous injury. These witnesses were cross examined and nothing has come in their testimony to disbelieve the same. Similarly, PW-08 Dr. Rachna Jain, examining the x-ray film of the complainant, opined vide report Ex. PW8/A that the accused had suffered fracture in his right clavicle and anterior dislocation of shoulder joint. Hence, the prosecution has been able to prove that the nature of injury suffered by the complainant was in the nature of dislocation of a shoulder joint, covered squarely by the seventh clause, Section 320 IPC.
25. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this court has no hesitancy in holding that the prosecution has been able to prove the essential requirement for securing convic- tion u/s. 325 IPC i.e. voluntary causation of grievous hurt and by doing so has Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 10 RAJ 2025.12.24 17:22:12 +0530 shifted the onus of proof upon the accused to dispel the same. Hence, the only question which remains to be determined is whether the accused has been able to shift the onus of proof back upon the prosecution by evidence led by him.
26. The crux of the case averred by the accused, during his examination as DW-1 is that the complainant already had an injury and a bandage around his arm. Hence, it has been argued that since the complainant was already injured, he has taken the advantage of the said fact and falsely implicated the accused in the present case. The defence of the accused is devoid of any merit and must be discarded or perusal of the medical evidence led by the prosecution shows that it does not mention any where that the nature of injury suffered by the accused was previous inflicted/suffered. If that were to be the case, the MLC i.e. PW6/A would have mentioned it. There is no such endorsement or observation in the said MLC. Moreover, the doctor who prepared the MLC i.e. PW-06 had stepped into the wit- ness box and opportunity of cross examination was afforded to the accused. How- ever, no question or suggestion even regarding the injuries to the effect that it had been suffered before hand by the complainant was put to this witness. In the ab- sence of any such question or endorsement upon the MLC, the defence of the ac- cused that the injuries suffered by the complainant were inflicted upon him prior to the case at hand stands dismissed. Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:22:17 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 11
27. In the present case, perusal of the list of witnesses arrayed by the prosecution in the list of witnesses shows that the same contains the complainant as the star wit- ness. As stated above, he remained unserved through the DCP concerned. Hence, nothing has come in evidence against the accused to bring home the charge u/s. 356/379/34 IPC for securing conviction. As regards the charge u/s. 411 IPC, since no ownership proof qua the mobile phone was furnished by the prosecution, the charge u/s. 411 IPC also stands negated.
DECISION
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the ingredients of section 325 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused. Accused Raj Bahadur S/o Sh. Dev Singh is accordingly convicted for the offence u/s. 325 IPC.
29. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence. This judgment contains 13 pages and each page has been duly signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:22:23 +0530 Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ) on 24 th of December, 2025 Judicial Magistrate-01 East, KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 12 APPENDIX (as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Manojbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 1433) CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution witness no. Name of witness Description
1. PW-01 Kitab Ali Complainant/injured
2. PW-02 Afsana Eye witness
3. PW -03 HC Beer Singh Police witness
4. PW-04 Ct. Bhupender Police witness
5. PW-05 ASI Subhash Police witness
6. PW-06 Dr. Ishwar Meena Doctor who prepared MLC
7. PW-07 Dr. Sushil Kumar CMO, LBS Hospital
8. PW-08 Dr. Rachna Jain Sr. Specialist, Radiology CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS Exhibit. No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by /attested by Ex. PW1/A Statement of complainant PW-01 to police Ex.PW1/B Arrest memo of accused PW-1 Ex. PW1/C Site plan PW-1 Ex. PW4/A Arrest memo (as per PW-5 testimony of PW-05) Ex. PW4/B Personal search memo of PW-4 accused Ex. PW5/A DD No. 40A PW-5 Ex. PW 5/B Rukka PW-5 Ex. PW-6/A MLC No. 13710/2014 PW-6 Ex. PW8/A Report of Senior Specialist PW-8 Radiology Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.24 17:20:57 +0530 FIR No. 473/2014 State vs Raj Bahadur Page 13