Delhi District Court
State vs Mubarak on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MR. HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC- 01), SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
[Date of Judgment: 13.12.2025]
SC No.: 523/2020
CNR No.: DLST010098612022
FIR No.: 213/2020
Police Station: Fatehpur Beri
u/Section: 308, 323, 506, 34, IPC
Complainant: STATE
Represented by - Mr. Santosh Kumar, Additional Public
Prosecutor
Accused Person(s): 1. MUBARAK (A1)
2. KASIM (A2)
3. SABRA (A3)
Represented by - Mr. Mohd. Hamid Awari, Advocate
Date of Offence: 25.05.2020
Date of FIR: 26.05.2020
Date of Chargesheet: 19.11.2020
Date of Framing Charges: 23.08.2023
Date of Commencement of Evidence: 06.11.2023
Date of Judgment reserved: 22.11.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment: 13.12.2025
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any: 19.12.2025
SC No. 523/2025
State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 1/27
JUDGMENT
13.12.2025
1. Sabra and her two sons, Mubarak and Kasim alias Kalu have been arraigned for commission of offences punishable under Section 308, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). All three stood trial before the Court of Sessions.
Factual Matrix
2. The facts in nutshell are that on 25.05.2020 at around 3:30 PM one Manju Devi, resident of Sambhav Colony, Fatehpuri Beri, Delhi while waiting for water supply, the water tanker had not yet arrived, decided to make good of her time by breaking some wood lying outside her house. Her neighbour, Sabra, protested that the wood lying there belonged to her. Manju Devi and Sabra got into a verbal altercation and soon it took form of a melee. With the children of Sabra, Mubarak, Kasim and CCL 'S' joining their mother on one side, and Manju Devi joined by her sons, Chandan and Prakash not only free fists and blows were exchanged amongst the family members, but also Manju Devi along with both her sons Chandan and Prakash were allegedly hit on their heads with a danda by CCL 'S' and Kasim alias Kalu. Chandan and Prakash were also beaten with legs and fists by Mubarak, Kasim and CCL 'S'.
3. During this alleged slugfest, Manju Devi fell on the ground and at the same time her mobile phone and ₹2,000/- also fell. At this time, SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 2/27one of the neighbours rushed towards Manju Devi's daughter' house and she somehow saved her sons and herself from the clutches of the attackers and left the spot for her house.
4. At that point in time, the assailants threatened Manju Devi and her sons that right now they were beaten with danda next time bullet or sword will be used to kill them all.
5. The wheels of justice were set in motion, when a PCR call was made vide DD No. 26, 27, 29A dated 26.05.2020. ASI Mahender Singh accompanied by Ct. Manish visited the spot i.e., House No. 594, Gali No. 06, Bapu Camp, Sambhav Colony, Fatehpuri Beri, Delhi.
6. On inquiry, ASI Mahender Singh found out that there was a quarrel between neighbours and the injured were taken to the unknown hospital. On receiving information through DD No. 36A, ASI Mahender Singh rushed to AIIMS Trauma Centre, wherein MLC No. 500233156/20 regarding injured Chandan, MLC No. 500233155/20 regarding injured Manju Devi and MLC No. 500233154/2020 regarding injured Vikas Kumar, all found with alleged history of assault and result awaited, pending investigation. On further inquiry, ASI Mahender Singh gained knowledge that all the injured persons were discharged and they had left for their home.
7. ASI Mahender Singh along with Ct. Manish reached the house of injured Manju Devi and recorded her statement and visited the spot.
SC No. 523/2025 Page No. 3/27Accordingly, ASI Mahender Singh was of the prima facie view that the offences under Section 308, 506 read with 34 IPC have been committed by the accused persons.
8. On 26.05.2020 at 7:30 PM ASI Mahender Singh dispatched Ct. Manish from the spot to police station, Fatehpuri Beri along with copy of rukka for registration of FIR. Thereafter, FIR No. 213/2020 dated 26.05.2020 (subject FIR) was registered at police station Fatehpuri Beri under Section 308, 506 read with 34 IPC.
9. The investigation of the subject FIR was marked to ASI Mahender Singh, who filed the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2020 before the concerned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-01, South District, Saket Court, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Magistrate-01") on 15.12.2020. The learned Magistrate-01 took cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons vide order dated 19.07.2022. The copy of charge sheet along with documents was duly furnished to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207, 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
10. The learned Magistrate-01 committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence punishable under Section 308, IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
11. The Court vide order dated 23.08.2023, framed the charge against all the accused persons under Section 308, 323, 506 all read with SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 4/27Section 34 IPC. It is observed on bare perusal of the charge framed by the Court that the name of the complainant, Manju Devi has been stated as Anju Devi. It is clarified that the same appears to be a typographical error and the name of the complainant be read as Manju Devi. Further, in the charge framed by the Court there is mention of CCL 'S' being one of the attackers and the alleged offences were committed by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.
Prosecution & Defence' Evidence
12. Though, in the charge sheet, the concerned investigating officer (IO) cited 14 (fourteen) witnesses, however, only 12 (twelve) prosecution witnesses stepped into the dock.
13. Manju Devi (PW-2) recorded her examination-in-chief statement on 09.01.2024, 10.04.2024 and 26.11.2024. Manju Devi (PW-2) narrated the occurrence of incident in tandem with the subject FIR. She testified that she is a resident of Gali No. 6, Shambhu Camp Colony on the day of incident, she had gone to her another house in Gali No. 6, to take water from tanker. However, the tanker had not arrived at that time, she went towards her house and started breaking wood lying near her house. On seeing this her neighbour, Sabra started abusing Manju Devi (PW-2).
14. Thereafter, Mubarak along with his family members came with danda. Manju Devi (PW-2) testified that there were 5-6 (five to six) SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 5/27people along with Mubarak, whose names she does not know. They started abusing her and started to pull her saree. Manju Devi (PW-2) told Mubarak that she is like his mother. Mubarak did not pay any heed and started beating her with lathi and she fell on the ground. In the meantime, one of her sons, Prakash came to look for her that why she had not joined him for lunch. Prakash tried to rescue his mother, but the assailants attacked him. At that point in time, Manju Devi's (PW-2) younger son, Chandan came there to rescue her. Even he was attacked and Manju Devi (PW-2) and both her sons fell on the ground. Her neighbours came to the spot and helped them to get up from the ground. One of the neighbours brought Manju Devi's (PW-2) saree, which was thrown in the bushes and gave it to her.
15. Manju Devi (PW-2) stated that she was bleeding as she got hurt on her head. The sons of Manju Devi called 100 and the police arrived at the spot. Manju Devi (PW-2) also stated that she gave her complaint to the police near her house. She also narrated that accused Mubarak and his brother Raju kept giving threats after consuming alcohol.
16. On 26.11.2024, Manju Devi (PW-2) was also cross examined. She stated that when Sabra saw her breaking wood, she started to squabble and abuse her. On hearing the commotion, her son Chandan also came there, and he asked them not to abuse. Kasim, son of Mubarak (sic) came with danda and started beating them. In the meantime, Prakash, son of Manju Devi (PW-2) also came there. Thereafter, all the SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 6/27accused persons started beating Manju Devi (PW-2) and both her sons with danda. Manju Devi (PW-2) sustained injuries on her head due to the beatings given by the son of Mubarak. During scuffle her mobile phone and ₹2,000/- also fell at the spot. Some public persons gathered there and one person from the public along with her daughter saved them. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away when they moved towards their house. The accused persons threaten to kill Manju Devi and her sons by bullet and swords. Police arrived at the spot and took the injured person to the hospital for their medical examination and treatment. After her medical examination, police recorded her statement and registered the case against the accused persons. Manju Devi (PW-
2) had shown the place of occurrence to the police, who prepared the site plan.
17. With the permission of the Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) asked a leading question, to Manju Devi (PW-2) about date of occurrence of incident. Manju Devi (PW-2) stated that it is correct that the incident occurred on 20.05.2020. She further stated that due to the injuries sustained by her on the day of the incident, she could not recollect the exact date of the incident.
18. During her cross-examination Manju Devi (PW-2) admitted that Sabra and herself are neighbours and Sabra resides near her house. She also admitted that there was a scuffle between them prior to the incident. She voluntarily stated that Sabra used to abuse them without any cause.
SC No. 523/2025 Page No. 7/27No prior case was pending against her or filed by her against the accused persons. She admitted that she has made a complaint against the police to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor.
19. Manju Devi (PW-2) testified that she is an illiterate person and the complaint (Ex.PW2/A) was written by someone. She denied that she regularly fought with the accused persons for possession of forest land and because of which she filed a false and fabricate case against the accused persons.
20. The second eye witness cited by the prosecution is Chandan (PW-
9), who also happens to be one of the victims. Chandan testified that police and ambulance were called, on arrival of the ambulance all three injured persons were shifted to the hospital. At the hospital medical attention and treatment were meted out to the accused persons and their medico legal certificates were prepared by the doctor. Chandan (PW-9) stated that after discharge from the hospital, on the next day, a complaint was made to the police. Chandan identified all the three accused persons in the courtroom as the assailants of the incident.
21. On being cross examined, Chandan denied that his mother has filed several false cases against various other persons in their locality. Chandan also denied that there is a nala between Sabra's house and their house, where the alleged incident occurred. He voluntarily stated that there is a khadda. He also stated that he does not remember as of now about the mobile phone and ₹2000/- of her mother. He denied the SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 8/27suggestion that neither the mobile phone nor ₹2000 fell at the spot and he is deposing falsely.
22. Chandan (PW-9) testified that initially the quarrel ensued with hot arguments between Sabra and his mother. He denied the suggestion that his family often quarrels with their neighbours, and habitual of making false complaints on the pretext of grabbing government land. He denied that they have falsely implicated Sabra and her two sons at the instance of their mother.
23. The prosecution introduced Sonu (PW-7) as a third eyewitness, who resided in the same locality, but he testified that he did not actually witness the incident on 25.05.2020, claiming he arrived at the scene only after the police had already detained the accused persons, Mubarak, Kasim, and Sabra and the injured complainant, Manju Devi being taken away for medical treatment. Although Sonu admitted to knowing the accused since birth, he was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor for resiling from his previous statement. He explicitly denied telling the police that he saw the accused beating the victims with wooden sticks.
24. The fourth witness cited by the prosecution as an eyewitness, Nisha Khatun (PW-11), aged about 50 years residing at House No. 539, Bapu Shambhu (sic) Colony, Mandi Pahadi, New Delhi. Nisha Khatun (PW-11) testified that at the time of the incident, which she recalled as occurring about four years ago, she was at home preparing food for a SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 9/27guest. She knows the accused persons, who are her neighbours, and identified them in courtroom. She saw the accused and some other persons scuffling with each other, but after witnessing this, she went inside her house. She stated she did not see anything more than the scuffling and claimed to know nothing further about the present case. During cross-examination by the learned APP, she stated that she did not know the complainant Manju Devi or her sons, Chandan and Prakash. She denied the suggestions that she saw the accused persons beating Manju Devi and her sons with sticks or that the accused were beating them over picking or lifting wood. However, she admitted that the incident took place on 25.05.2020 but denied witnessing any beating or the accused carrying a stick. Nisha Khatun (PW-11) confirmed that police recorded her statement but denied being won over by the accused or deposing falsely in their favour.
25. The medical witnesses testified with regard to the MLC of the complainant/victim Manju Devi and victim Chandan. The medical evidence corroborates that both of them suffered injuries on 25.05.2020. As for Manju Devi's, MLC, she suffered one laceration wound of 1x1cm at her scalp. The nature of her injury was simple hurt, and she was discharged the same day. With regard to the MLC of Chandan, he also suffered single wound, which was an abrasion over occipital region, and the nature of his injury was simple. Chandan, too was discharged on the same day.
SC No. 523/2025 Page No. 10/2726. Now, coming to the police witnesses, all the police witnesses are formal in nature and they have deposed with respect to various aspects of the investigation.
27. On 26.05.2020, one day after the incident, Manju Devi filed a complaint which led ASI Mahender (PW-12) to prepare the tehrir and ASI Rajesh (PW-3) to register the FIR at the Fatehpur Beri police station. ASI Mahender (PW-12), the investigating officer, testified that he prepared the site plan and questioned neighbours Sonu (PW-7) and Nisha Khatun (PW-11), who disclosed that the dispute arose over the issue of picking wood. Additionally, ASI Mahender served notices under Section 41 to the accused--Mubarak, Kasim, and Sabra-- prepared interrogation reports, and filed the charge sheet upon concluding the investigation.
28. ASI Mahender identified all three accused in courtroom and testified during cross-examination that he received the call between 3:30 P.M. and 4:00 P.M., reaching the scene within 15 to 20 minutes. He noted that the injured persons had already been discharged from the hospital before his arrival and described the incident location as a residential area occupying government land near a jungle or pahadi. He further denied the suggestion that he had pressured public witnesses to provide their testimony
29. The statements of all three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, 1973, wherein they denied all the allegations against SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 11/27them and claimed false prosecution as the complainant had falsely implicated them. All the accused persons have toed the same line that they have been falsely implicated in the subject FIR. The accused persons submitted that they do want to lead defence evidence.
30. The accused persons in their defence, put two persons in the dock, to testify for them, Asgar Ali (DW-1) and Kamruddin (DW-2). Both the defence witnesses were the neighbours of the accused persons.
31. Asgar Ali (DW-1) claimed that he resides near the accused persons' house and was present at the spot on the day of Eid (25.05.2020 at about 1:30 P.M. He also claimed to have only witnessed a verbal argument between Sabra and the complainant, Manju Devi, over the issue of keeping goods. Asgar Ali (DW-1) testified that he settled the matter by pacifying both parties, and they all went home.
32. Asgar Ali (DW-1) denied that no such incident took place on that day, and denied the suggestion that the accused beat up Manju Devi and her sons. However, he did admit that he did not go to the police station to tell about the innocence of the accused persons.
33. Kamruddin (DW-2) testified that he is also a neighbour of the accused. He remembered the incident occurred on Eid, between 2:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. He claimed that a verbal argument started between the ladies over a lady picking up Sabra' goods. He stated that no incident of beating took place there. He further stated that the matter was SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 12/27pacified, and both parties went home. He also stated that the police reached the spot and pacified the matter. Kamruddin (DW-2) denied the suggestion that Sabra and her son started beating the complainant, Manju Devi, and her sons with a danda. He admitted that he did not go to the police station to tell about the innocence of the accused persons.
Submissions by Counsels
34. Mr. Santosh Kumar learned APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons with regard to attempt to commit culpable homicide against the complainant and her sons. The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has also proved its case that the injury caused to the complainant and both her sons was committed with full intention and knowledge as both the parties, are neighbours and to teach them a lesson.
35. The learned APP further submitted that the accused persons acted in furtherance of common intention and not only committed offence punishable under Section 308, read with Section 34, IPC, but also voluntarily caused hurt punishable under Section 323, read with Section 34, IPC and Section 506 read with Section 34, IPC as they advanced threats to kill the complainant and her family members by sword and bullets. The learned APP concluded his argument on the note that the offence committed by the accused persons is an offence which cannot SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 13/27be ignored as they are heinous offences grievous nature and such offences are offences against the society.
36. Mr. Mohd. Hamid Awari learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case and charges brought against the accused persons. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof by proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel urged that the Court may pass an acquittal judgment in favour of the accused persons, as they all are innocent persons, who were falsely implicated by the complainant as the complainant held a grudge against them because they stalled the lofty ambition of the complainant to acquire the government land in forest area.
37. The learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that no case punishable under Section 308, 506 read with Section 34, IPC are made out against the accused persons, as there is no cogent evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that with regard to the allegations of the complainant had her sons getting hurt, the injury caused to the complainant, Manju Devi was because she fell during the scuffle as she lost her balance, whereas, the injuries on the sons of the complainant were self-inflicted injuries. The learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that the accused persons have suffered the ordeal of trial as SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 14/27they belong to the lower strata of the society and they may be acquitted of the alleged offences.
Points for Determination
38. The questions posed to the Court for determination are as under:
(i) Whether the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-
2) and Sabra (A-3) in furtherance of their common intention committed the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide against Manju Devi, Prakash and Chandan on 25.05.2020, punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34, IPC?
(ii) Whether the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-
2) and Sabra (A-3) committed the offence of causing voluntarily hurt to Manju Devi, Prakash and Chandan on 25.05.2020, punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC?
(iii) Whether the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-
2) and Sabra (A-3) committed the offence of criminal intimidation by advancing threat to cause death or grievous hurt by using sword, bullet against Manju Devi, Prakash and Chandan on 25.05.2020, punishable under Section 506 Part II read with Section 34, IPC?
SC No. 523/2025 Page No. 15/27Analysis & Reasoning
39. Section 308, IPC reads as under:
"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.
Illustration A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he there by caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section."
40. The key ingredients for the prosecution to prove commission of an offence punishable under Section 308, IPC are:
(i) that the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) that such act was of the accused, and
(iii) that the act was done with intention or knowledge and under the circumstances that if it had caused death, the act would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
41. To secure a conviction under Section 308, IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had requisite 'intention' or 'knowledge' to SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 16/27cause culpable homicide, which in turn can be ascertained from the actual injury as well as from the actual injury as well as from the surrounding circumstances - See Roopchand @ Lala v. State (NCT) of Delhi.1
42. Section 34, IPC reads as under:
"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."
43. The ingredients of Section 34 are that the accused persons had acted in furtherance of their common intention is required to be proved specifically or by inference - See Hamlet alias Sasi & Ors. v. State of Kerala - (2003) 10 SCC 108.
44. Section 34 IPC carves out an exception from general law that a person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a person can also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others if he has the "common intention" to commit the offence. The phrase "common intention" implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time. The common intention to bring about a particular result may also well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and 1 Criminal Appeal No. 2204 of 2010 - order dated 22.09.2020 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 17/27circumstances existing thereto. The common intention under Section 34 IPC is to be understood in a different sense from the "same intention"
or "similar intention" or "common object". The persons having similar intention which is not the result of the pre-arranged plan cannot be held guilty of the criminal act with the aid of Section 34 IPC - See Mohan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174.
45. The prosecution's case under Section 308, IPC against the accused persons is that on 25.05.2020, Sabra and the complainant, Manju Devi got in a verbal duel and started squabbling over breaking of wood, Sabra was joined by her sons, Mubarak, Kasim and CCL 'S', who in furtherance of their common intention, came armed with a danda at the call of their matter and attempted to commit culpable homicide against the complainant, Manju Devi and her sons, Chandan and Prakash. It is alleged that the assailants party beat up the complainant and her sons and even hit them with danda, fists and kicks. During this melee, Manju Devi fell and so did her mobile phone and ₹2,000/- When the warring parties were separated and the complainant and her sons were leaving the scene it is alleged, the accused persons imparted threats to them. As corroborated by medical evidence, Manju Devi and both her sons, Chandan and Prakash sustained injuries. Manju Devi suffered a laceration wound of 1 x 1 cm on her scalp. Chandan suffered an abrasion on occipital region of his head. The nature of injuries sustained by Manju Devi and Chandan were simple in nature and they were discharged from the hospital same day itself as a matter SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 18/27of fact within hour(s) and it is for that reason, by the time the IO ASI Mahender reached the hospital, the complainant and her sons had left the hospital for their home.
46. During the course of pendency of this case, the second son of Manju Devi died and it is for that reason, his medical legal certificate was not tendered in evidence by the prosecution.
47. Now coming to the two main eyewitnesses, Manju Devi (PW-2) and Chanda (PW-9), who also happens to be the victims. The testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let the actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of their evidence on the basis of major contradiction and discrepancies - See Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. - 2010 INSC 608.
48. The testimony of Manju Devi (PW-2) at is found to be mired with inconsistencies and improvement. It is observed that nowhere in the complaint Manju Devi (PW-2) mentioned that the accused persons threw away her sari during the quarrel and it was some neighbour of hers, who brought back her sari. Further, there is neither mention of the SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 19/27same in the charge-sheet nor Manju Devi' son, Chandan (PW-9) testified anything about her mother's sari being thrown away.
49. Sonu (PW-7) resident of the same neighbourhood cited by the prosecution as eye witness testified that the quarrel did happen on 25.05.2020, but he did not actually witness the incident. Sonu (PW-7) got to the scene only after police's arrival. Sonu (PW-7) also denied telling the police that he saw the accused persons beating the complainant and her sons with wooden sticks. The prosecution has also failed to prove recovery of any alleged danda or wooden sticks used by the assailants.
50. Another eyewitness cited by the prosecution, Nisha Khatun (PW-
11) a resident of the same neighbourhood testified that at the time of the incident she was at her home and preparing food for a guest, she saw the accused persons and some other persons scuffling with each other, but after witnessing this, she went back inside her house. It is found that Nisha Khatun (PW-11) also did not support the case of the prosecution.
51. A verbal duel between Manju Devi and Sabra snowballed into a quarrel between two neighbours, which like a whirlwind pulled in their sons. With the sons joining their mothers, an affray soon became exchange of fists, blows and kicks. It was alleged by Manju Devi that she and her sons where hit by a danda. The medical evidence corroborates Manju Devi and Chandan getting hurt, the nature of injuries received by them were simple in nature. The key ingredient for SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 20/27proving the commission of offence punishable under Section 308, IPC is 'knowledge' and 'intention' to inflict such injury, which would cause victim's death within the meaning of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The injuries inflicted on Manju Devi and her sons appear to be in a fit of rage and indicates that the accused persons did not intend to cause any fatal injury.
52. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its law report of State v. Kamlesh Bahadur - 2023 DHC 6678 where the State preferred a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal under Section 308, IPC arising from an assault of one Sushila Devi. The Court examined witness testimony, medical records, and reasoning of the Trial Court, to determine whether the evidence supported culpable homicide related charges. The High Court concluded that injuries were simple and unsupported for Section 308, IPC and the Court while exercising its appellate power converted the acquittal under Section 308, IPC to conviction under Section 323, IPC and sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for the period of 20 days already undergone.
53. This Court arrives at a finding that the key ingredients of 'knowledge' and 'intention', to cause death of the complainant, her sons (read as other victims) are missing in the prosecution's evidence.
54. Accordingly, the Court finds and rules against the prosecution that it has failed to prove the point of determination (i) beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-
SC No. 523/2025 Page No. 21/272) and Sabra (A-3) in furtherance of their common intention committed the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide against Manju Devi, Prakash and Chandan on 25.05.2020, punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34, IPC.
55. Regarding the point of determination (ii), the Court finds and rules weighing the evidence led by the prosecution by way of testimony of the complainant, Manju Devi (PW-2), her son Chandan (PW-9) and Nisha Khatun (PW-11) seeing that the warring parties were scuffling and the injuries inflicted upon Manju Devi and her son Chandan and the same corroborated by medical evidence that the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-2) and Sabra (A-3) committed the offence of causing voluntarily hurt to Manju Devi, Prakash and Chandan on 25.05.2020, punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC.
56. Lastly, regarding the point of determination (iii), the Court finds and rules that the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any evidence and prove that the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-2) and Sabra (A-3) committed the offence of criminal intimidation by advancing threat to cause death or grievous hurt by using sword, bullet against Manju Devi, Prakash and Chandan on 25.05.2020, punishable under Section 506 Part II read with Section 34, IPC.
SC No. 523/2025 Page No. 22/27Decision
57. In view of the above observations and findings, the final decision of the Court is as below:
(a) All the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-2) and Sabra (A-3) are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34, IPC;
(b) All the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-2) and Sabra (A-3) are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC, and
(c) All the accused persons, Mubarak (A-1), Kasim (A-2) and Sabra (A-3) are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part II read with Section 34, IPC.
58. Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence on 19.12.2025. Let a copy of this judgment be given to the accused persons free of cost. Digitally signed by Hargurvarinder Hargurvarinder Singh jaggi Singh jaggi Date: 2025.12.13 16:32:31 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi) on December 13, 2025 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC-01) South District Saket Courts, New Delhi nk Note: This judgment comprises of 27 pages in total. The electronic signature certificate (digital signature) of the Presiding Officer has been appended on page number 23 of the total 27 pages of the electronic or digital copy (PDF) of this document.
SC No. 523/2025Page No. 23/27 Appendix FORM-B S.No. Rank of Name of the Date Date of Offences Whether Sentence Period of the Accused of Release Charged Acquitted Imposed detention Accused Arrest on Bail or undergone Convicted during Trial for purpose of Section 428 CrPC :: 468 BNSS i. A1 Mubarak - On 308 r/w Acquitted Nil S/o Late AB 34 Aslam Khan 323 r/w Guilty 34 506 r/w Acquitted 34 ii. A2 Kasim - On 308 r/w Acquitted Nil S/o Late AB 34 Aslam Khan 323 r/w Guilty 34 506 r/w Acquitted 34 iii. A3 Sabra - On 308 r/w Acquitted Nil Wd/o Aslam AB 34 Khan 323 r/w Guilty 34 506 r/w Acquitted 34 SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors. Page No. 24/27 FORM-C
List of Prosecution / Defence / Court Witnesses A. Prosecution S.No. Rank Name Nature of Evidence (Eye Witness, Police Witness, Expert Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)
1. PW1 Dr. Neeru Yadav Medical Witness
2. PW2 Manju Devi Eye Witness
3. PW3 ASI Rajesh Police Witness
4. PW4 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma Medical Witness
5. PW5 Dr. Zenith Mohanty Medical Witness
6. PW6 HC Dinesh Kumar Police Witness
7. PW7 Sonu Eye Witness
8. PW8 ASI Manohar Lal Police Witness
9. PW9 Chandan Eye Witness
10. PW10 HC Manish Kumar Police Witness
11. PW11 Nisha Khatun Eye Witness
12. PW12 ASI Mahender (Retd.) Police Witness B. Defence Witnesses S.No. Rank Name Nature of Evidence (Eye Witness, Police Witness, Expert Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)
1. DW1 Asgar Ali Eye Witness
2. DW2 Kamruddin Eye Witness SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 25/27List of Prosecution / Defence / Court Exhibits A. Prosecution S.No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit PW1/A MLC No. 500233155 - Medico legal certificate of Manju Devi
2. Exhibit PW2/A Complaint by Manju Devi
3. Exhibit PW3/A Computer generated copy of FIR No. (OSR) 213/2020 dated 26.05.2020
4. Exhibit PW3/B Endorsement at 2014Hrs dated 26.05.2020
5. Exhibit PW3/C Certificated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
6. Exhibit PW4/A Authority letter issued by Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Faculty In-charge in favour of Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi
7. Exhibit PW4/B MLC No. 500233156 - Medico legal certificate of Chandan
8. Exhibit PW7/A Statement of witness, Sonu (PW-7) recorded under Section 161, CrPC, the relevant extracts confronted to Sonu (PW-7) are marked as below:
Point 'A' to 'A1'; Point 'A1' to 'B', and Point 'B' to 'B1'
9. Exhibit PW8/A PCR Call Form vide GD No. 25-A and marked to HC Rajesh Kumar for inquiry
10. Exhibit PW11/A Statement of witness, Nisha Khatun (PW-11) recorded under Section 161, CrPC, the relevant extracts confronted to Nisha Khatun (PW-11) are marked as below:
Point 'A' to 'A1' SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.Page No. 26/27
11. Exhibit PW12/A Tehrir prepared by ASI Mahender (Retd.)
12. Exhibit PW12/B Naksha mauka, site plan prepared at the instance of the complainant
13. Exhibit PW12/C-1 Notice under Section 41, CrPC, 1973 to accused, Kasim
14. Exhibit PW12/C-2 Notice under Section 41, CrPC, 1973 to accused, Sabra
15. Exhibit PW12/C-3 Notice under Section 41, CrPC, 1973 to accused, Mubarak
16. Exhibit PW12/D Interrogation report of accused, Kasim
17. Exhibit PW12/E Interrogation report of accused, Mubarak B. Defence Nil documents C. Court Exhibits Nil documents D. Material Objects Nil documents ***** ***** ***** SC No. 523/2025 State v. Mubarak & Ors.
Page No. 27/27