Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAYUSHI SAXENA,
CIVIL JUDGE -03, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
CR Case No. -: 75837/2016
CNR No. -: DLSH020003632012
FIR No. -: 88/2011
Police Station -: Jafrabad
Section(s) -: 323/326/34 IPC
In the matter of:
STATE
(Represented by Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma,
Ld. APP for the State)
VERSUS
1.Manoj, S/o Gajraj Singh, R/o House No.349, Mata Wali, Rajput Mohalla, Village Ghonda, Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30
15:23:06
+0530
State Vs. Manoj & Ors.
FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 1 of 25
2. Sunder Singh,
S/o Tek Chand,
R/o House No.349, Mata Wali,
Rajput Mohalla, Village Ghonda, Delhi.
3. Krishanpal @ Pal, S/o Jay Bhagwan, R/o House No.349, Mata Wali, Rajput Mohalla, Village Ghonda, Delhi.
...... Accused Bhupender Singh,
1. Name of Complainant :
S/o Rambir Singh.
1. Manoj, S/o Gajraj Singh, R/o House No.349, Mata Wali, Rajput Mohalla, Village Ghonda,
2. Name of Accused : Delhi.
2. Sunder Singh, S/o Tek Chand, R/o House No.349, Mata Wali, Rajput Mohalla, Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA State Vs. Manoj & Ors. SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:23:24 +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 2 of 25 Village Ghonda, Delhi.
3. Krishanpal @ Pal, S/o Jay Bhagwan, R/o House No.349, Mata Wali, Rajput Mohalla, Village Ghonda, Delhi.
3. Offence complained of or proved :
IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 15.03.2011
6. Date of filing of case : 05.01.2012
7. Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2025 All three accused
8. Final Order : have been convicted u/s 324/34 IPC BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.2011 at about 6:45 PM, at Main Brahmpuri Road, in front of Shiv Mandir, Rajpur Mohalla, Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
State Vs. Manoj & Ors. 2025.10.30
15:23:36
FIR No. 88/2011 +0530
PS Jafrabad Page no. 3 of 25
Ghonda, Delhi, all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused grievous injury to the complainant Bhupender. Also, on the above-mentioned date, time and place, all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused simple injury to one Rajbir. Based on the complaint of the complainant, the FIR in the present case was registered.
INVESTIGATION, APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED ETC.-
2 After registration of the FIR, IO undertook the investigation and on culmination of the same, the said Police Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the accused persons was filed.
3 Vide order dated 05.01.2012, Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offence and summons were issued upon the accused persons. On 26.03.2012, accused persons had appeared and copy of the police report along-with documents annexed therewith, were supplied to all of them, as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4 On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge under Section 323/326/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 01.06.2012, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE:
5 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined following witnesses:
5.1 PW-1 Bhupinder Rawal deposed that on 15.03.2011 at about 6:30 Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA Date: SAXENA 2025.10.30 15:23:51 +0530 State Vs. Manoj & Ors.FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 4 of 25 PM, he was standing in front of the house of his friend Ajit Rawal and at that time his friend Sunder also came to him. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, all the accused came and started quarrelling with them. He further deposed that accused Krishanpal was holding halvai wala palta in his hand and during the quarrel, accused Sundar inflicted injury on his face with a blade and accused Krishanpal tried to hit him with the above-said palta on his head but he rescued himself and during the process, the said palta was hit on his finger, due to which he received injury on his hand. He also deposed that the said palta was hot at that time and he received injury on his fingers also. He also deposed that accused Manoj had given him beatings with fist and kicks and meanwhile one person namely Rajveer tried to rescue him, due to which he also received injuries. He also deposed that he rescued himself while running away and made a call at 100 number and thereafter all the accused ran away from the spot. Further, he deposed that police reached at the spot and took him and Rajbir to GTB hospital, where they were medically examined. He also deposed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A and after 3-4 days, all the accused were arrested and they were personally searched vide memos Mark X, XA, XB, XC,XD and XE. He also deposed that he had shown the place of occurrence to the police.
PW-1 duly identified accused Manoj and accused Sunder who were present in the court and identity of accused Krishan pal was not disputed.
PW-1 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for all the accused persons.
5.2 PW2 HC Narinder deposed that on 16.03.2011, he was posted as Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA Date: SAXENA 2025.10.30 15:24:05 +0530 State Vs. Manoj & Ors.
FIR No. 88/2011PS Jafrabad Page no. 5 of 25 a duty officer from 12 midnight to 8:00 AM and about 1:15 AM, Constable Sanjeev handed over to him rukka, sent by ASI Jeet Singh. He also deposed that on the basis of rukka, FIR Ex. PW2/B(OSR) was registered and he made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW2/A and after registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Sanjeev, to be handed over to ASI Jeet Singh for further investigation.
PW-2 was not cross examined by ld. counsel for all the accused persons despite being given opportunity.
5.3 PW3 Ct. Sanjeev deposed that on 15.03.2011, he joined the investigation in the present case with ASI Jeet Singh. He also deposed that IO received DD No. 61B, regarding quarrel at Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Brahmapuri Road, Maujpur and he, along with IO, went to the spot i.e. Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Brahmapuri Road, Maujpur and there they came to know that PCR van had already taken the complainant to GTB hospital. He further deposed that he went to GTB hospital along with IO and IO received MLC number 1203 of complainant and thereafter, IO recorded statement of complainant, prepared rukka upon the complaint and handed it over to the witness for registration of FIR. He also deposed that thereafter, he went to the PS and handed over the original tehrir to DO, for registration of FIR and after some time DO handed over to him the original tehrir and copy of FIR, after which he went to the spot and he handed over the same to the IO. He further deposed that he along with the IO searched for the accused persons but all the accused persons were not found and then IO recorded his statement.
PW-3 was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for all the accused Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:24:13 +0530 State Vs. Manoj & Ors.FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 6 of 25
persons.
5.4 PW-4 Ct. Niranjan Singh deposed that on 18.03.2011, he joined
the investigation in the present case with IO ASI Jeet Singh. He also deposed that IO arrested all the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B, Ex. PW4/C and personally searched them vide memos Ex. PW4/D, Ex. PW4/E and Ex. PW4/F and he also recorded their disclosure statements Ex. PW4/G, Ex. PW4/H and Ex. PW4/I. He further deposed that IO recorded the pointing out memos of the incident Ex. PW4/J, Ex. PW4/K and Ex. PW4/L. He also deposed that the accused persons were thereafter sent to lock-up. PW-4 correctly identified all the accused persons during his testimony. PW-4 was cross examined by ld. counsel for all the accused persons. 5.5 PW-5 Rajveer deposed that he did not remember the exact date and month of the incident but in the year 2011, it was around 6:07 PM in the evening and all the accused persons were having some quarrel with the complainant and he tried to intervene in the quarrel but his leg went into the drain nearby, due to which he fell down and got injured on the left side his waist. He also deposed that he did not know who had called the police and he was also taken to the hospital where his medical documents were prepared and he was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW5/A. He also deposed that he was asked about the incident by the police and the police official wrote something on a piece of paper.
PW-5 correctly identified all the accused persons during his testimony. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity.
5.6 PW-6 Dr. Nitin Chawla deposed that on 15.03.2011, at about 8:15 PM, he prepared MLC bearing number A1203/2011, Ex. PW6/A. Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA Date: SAXENA 2025.10.30 15:24:21 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 7 of 25 He also deposed in the MLC, it has been recorded that there was alleged history of physical assault on 15.03.2011 at around 7:15 PM, with a sharp object near Maujpur, PS Jafrabad, Delhi. He further deposed that there was no history of loss of consciousness or vomiting or seizures or ENT bleeding and the patient had complained that he was hit by a hot blunt object on the skull and he complained of headache and giddiness. He further deposed that on local examination, it was found that the patient had contamination incised wound on the right side cheek, extending laterally from the lip horizontally around 5 cm x .5 cm, Burn mark/bullae (chhale) on the left little finger and left ring finger on distal phalanges anteriorly, Superficial cut mark on left palm, tenderness on left side parietal aspect of skull and the patient was conscious and oriented and his BP was 130/82, pulse was around 90 per minute, chest CVS, CNS were within normal limits He also deposed that patient was referred to surgery emergency and neuro-trauma emergency for further management and expert opinion.
PW-6 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
5.7 PW-7 Dr. Sushma inter-alia deposed that she had appeared in the Court on behalf of Dr. Sumit, who was the then Senior Resident and was posted in Accident and Emergency Dpeartment of GTB Hospital and who had done his work under supervision of PW6 and he also stated that he could identify handwriting and signature of Dr. Sumit. He further deposed that on 15.03.2011 at about 8:25 PM, one patient namely Rajveer was brought by police officials in the emergency and Dr. Sumit had examined the patient and also gave primary treatment to him. He further deposed that thereafter, Dr. Sumit referred the patient to Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:24:28 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 8 of 25 surgery emergency department and he had also prepared MLC of Rajveer bearing number B-1181/2011 Ex.PW7/A, bearing signature of Doctor Sumit at point A. PW-7 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for all the accused persons.
5.8 PW-8 Dr. Lawish deposed that MLC No. A1203/11 was prepared by Dr. Nitin Chawla and on 04.04.2011, injured was called in surgery OPD. He further deposed that as per the clinical notes of MLC, the injury was opined to be grievous and the same was recorded by him at point C and signed at point Z. PW-8 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for all the accused persons.
5.9 PW-9 Retd. SI Jeet Singh deposed that on 15.03.2011, a PCR call was received regarding quarrel and the same was marked to him vide DD number 61 B Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that after receiving the same, he along with Ct. Sanjeev left the PS, and reached the spot i.e. Shiv Mandir Gali, Maujpur, Delhi, and after reaching the spot, on local enquiry, it was found that PCR van had already taken the injured to GTB Hospital. He further deposed that thereafter he, alongwith Ct. Sanjeev went to GTB Hospital and obtained MLC of Bhupinder and Rajveer vide MLC number 1203/2011 and B1181/2011.
He further deposed that he met the injured Bhupender in GTB Hospital and recorded this statement Ex.PW1/A and on the MLC doctor had opined "under observation" and he prepared tehrir Ex.PW9/B and thereafter he handed over the tehrir to Ct. Sanjeev, who went to PS to get FIR registered. He further deposed that he, along with injured Bhupender and Rajveer, went to the spot of the incident and he prepared Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:24:55 +0530 State Vs. Manoj & Ors.FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 9 of 25 a site plan at their instance Ex.PW9/C. He further deposed that constable Sanjeev came to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original tehrir and they searched for all the accused persons but they could not be found. He further deposed that he recorded supplementary statement of Bhupinder and Rajveer and returned to the PS and thereafter, recorded statement of Ct. Sanjeev. He further deposed that on 18.03.2011, all the accused persons were arrested at Brahmpuri Road, vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C and he also prepared personal search memos of all the accused persons vide memos already exhibit Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. He further deposed that he also recorded disclosure statement of all the accused persons vide memos already Ex.PW4/G, Ex.PW4/H and Ex.PW4/I and he prepared pointing out memos already exhibit Ex.PW4/J, Ex.PW4/K and Ex.PW4/L. He further deposed that since the offence was bailable, all the accused were released on bail. He further deposed that thereafter he obtained final opinion on the MLC of Bhupinder and Rajveer and thereafter, section 326 IPC was added in the case diary and he gave notice to the accused persons to join the investigation. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Ct. Niranjan, completed the investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
He duly identified the accused persons in the court. PW-9 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for all the accused persons.
6 After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 24.09.2025, wherein all the accused persons denied the incriminating evidence that was put to them.
Digitally signed by AAYUSHIAAYUSHI SAXENA Date:
State Vs. Manoj & Ors. SAXENA 2025.10.30 15:25:50 FIR No. 88/2011 +0530 PS Jafrabad Page no. 10 of 25 They further stated that they did not wish to lead DE. In view of the same, DE stood closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
7 I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. defence counsel Mr. Pankaj Kumar. I have also perused the case file carefully.
8 As already mentioned, the accused persons have been facing trial for the commission of offences punishable u/s 323/326/34 IPC.
9 At this stage, let us discuss the legal principles involved in the present case.
10 The term "hurt" is defined under Section 319 IPC as bodily pain, disease or infirmity caused to any person by another person. 10.1 The offence of voluntarily causing hurt is defined under section 321 IPC as follows :-
"321. Voluntarily causing hurt --Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".
10.2 The offence of "voluntarily causing hurt" is made punishable under section 323 IPC, which is reproduced hereinafter for better understanding: -
" 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:26:00 +0530 State Vs. Manoj & Ors.FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 11 of 25 term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
10.3 Section 324 of the IPC states that when a person is voluntarily hurt by the use of a dangerous weapon or means, the act comes under the purview of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It reads as under:
"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to in- hale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
10.4 Grievous hurt is defined under section 320 IPC as following:
"320. Grievous hurt.-- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":
1. Emasculation.
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4. Privation of any member or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.Digitally signed by AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA Date:
SAXENA 2025.10.30 15:26:10 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 12 of 25
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
10.5 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt is defined in Section 322 IPC, which reads as follows "Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt."
Explanation.-- A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.
10.6 Section 326 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means (i.e. instrument for shooting, cutting, stabbing etc) 10.7 Thus, for the offence of hurt and greivous hurt, the penal liability of the accused is attracted not because he causes hurt but because he intends or knows that such hurt will be caused. A reading of above mentioned provisions would reveal that it is not enough if the prosecution proves that nature of injury sustained by the victim, it is equally necessary for the prosecution to prove that such injury was inflicted by the accused with the intent of causing such injury or with the knowledge of likelihood of such injury. Intention and knowledge, behind the commission of an act, is no Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:26:19 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 13 of 25 doubt inferred from the attending circumstances as it would be difficult to have direct evidence on these aspects but then it is a requisite of the law and, therefore, before attaching culpability for the accusation of hurt, the necessary circumstances, with respect to intention and/or knowledge, must be deposed to.
11. Now let us see whether the prosecution has been able to prove the above-mentioned ingredients, beyond reasonable doubt.
12. The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to receipt of DD No. number 61B dated 15.03.2011 (Ex. PW9/B), IO ASI Jeet Singh went along with Constable Sanjeev to the spot i.e Shiv Mandir wali Gali, Maujpur, where they came to know that PCR van had taken the injured to GTB Hospital and thereafter they both went to GTB Hospital where they obtained MLC number A1203/2011 of injured Bhupinder Singh(Ex. PW6/A) and MLC number B1181/2011 of Injured Rajveer(Ex.PW5/A). Thereafter, statement of complainant (Ex. PW1/A) was recorded wherein he stated that on 15.03.2011 at around 6:30 PM, he was standing in front of his friend's house, namely Ajit Rawal on main Brahmpuri Road and one person, namely Sundar was standing there with him. He further stated that two boys, namely, Sundar and Manoj came to them and asked Sundar that why was he standing near him and told Sundar to go with them and then they started fighting with the complainant w.r.t the abovementioned point, and in order to save himself, the complainant ran towards Shiv Mandir Gali. He also stated that thereafter, the above said Sundar and Manoj and one other person, namely Pal (who he knew from before) also came there. He further Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. 15:26:28 +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 14 of 25 stated that Pal was carrying halwai vala palta and he started fighting with the complainant and during this altercation Rajveer also sustained injuries. He also stated that Sunder hit him with a blade on his right cheek and Manoj hit him with fists and kicks. He also stated that when Pal was trying to hit him with halwai vala palta, he caught hold of the said palta, which was very hot, due to which he burnt the little finger of his right hand and he also sustained injury on his head. He further stated that thereafter he called on 100 number and the PCR van came and took him to GTB Hospital.
13. According to the case of the prosecution, one of the injured is Rajbir, who was examined as PW5. In his sworn testimony before the this Court he stated that he did not remember the exact date and month of the incident but in the year 2011, it was around 6:07 PM in the evening and all the accused persons were having some quarrel with the complainant and he tried to intervene in the quarrel but his leg went into the drain nearby, due to which he fell down and got injured on the left side his waist.
He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. Based on this, the submission of Ld. Counsel for accused is that his evidence should be discarded from the zone of consideration as the witness had turned hostile.
13.1 In essence prayer, on behalf of accused, is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus "(false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of the evidence of a witness is found to be deficient, the Court can still rely on that portion of the Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:26:37 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 15 of 25 evidence which is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. The maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. 13.2 In the present matter, PW5 has clearly deposed that in in the year 2011, it was around 6:07 PM in the evening and all the accused persons were having some quarrel with the complainant and he tried to intervene in the quarrel. So, admittedly, a quarrel took place between the complainant and accused persons. Pertinently, the said witness was not cross-
examined by accused at all. The effect thereof is that the said portions of his deposition are deemed to have been accepted as correct.
13.3 It is also important to note here that PW5 had deposed that when he tried to intervene in the quarrel, his leg went into the drain nearby when he fell and he got injured on the left side of his waist. He also stated that he was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW5/A. In the MLC of PW5 (Rajbir), Ex. PW5/A, it has been mentioned that " A/H/O assault on 15.03.2011 at around 07:15 PM near Maujpur, PS, Jafrabad,Delhi". PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution regarding the injuries received on his person, being caused by the accused. On this aspect that, it appears that PW5 is trying to protect the accused persons because of their admitted relationship.
14. Let us now discuss the testimony of the most important witness in Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:26:53 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 16 of 25 the present case, i.e. the complainant/injured, who has been examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 15.03.2011 at about 6:30 PM, he was standing in front of the house of his friend Ajit Rawal and at that time his friend Sunder also came to him. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, all the accused came and started quarrelling with them. He further deposed that accused Krishanpal was holding halvai wala palta in his hand and during the quarrel, accused Sundar inflicted injury on his face with a blade and accused Krishanpal tried to hit him with the above-said palta on his head but he rescued himself and during the process, the said palta was hit on his finger, due to which he received injury on his hand. He also deposed that the said palta was hot at that time and he received injury on his fingers also. He also deposed that accused Manoj had given him beatings with fist and kicks and meanwhile one person namely Rajveer tried to rescue him, due to which he also received injuries. So, PW1 has clearly stated the date and time of the offence and has also stated how he received injuries and role of each of the accused. He has supported the case of the prosecution and also identified the accused persons during his testimony in the Court. This witness was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and in his cross examination nothing material could be culled out, that could throw any doubt on the case of the prosecution. PW1 withstood the litmus test of cross examination. 14.1 At this stage, it is material to mention that Dr. Nitin Chawla, was examined as PW6 and he deposed that on 15.03.2011, at about 8:15 PM, he prepared MLC bearing number A1203/2011, Ex. PW6/A of complainant wherein he recorded Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:27:03 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 17 of 25 that there was alleged history of physical assault on
15.03.2011 at around 7:15 PM, with a sharp object near Maujpur, PS Jafrabad, Delhi. He further deposed the patient had complained that he was hit by a hot blunt object on the skull and he complained of headache and giddiness. He further deposed that on local examination, it was found that the patient had contamination incised wound on the right side cheek, extending laterally from the lip horizontally around 5 cm x .5 cm, Burn mark/bullae (chhale) on the left little finger and left ring finger on distal phalanges anteriorly, Superficial cut mark on left palm, tenderness on left side parietal aspect of skull and the patient was conscious and oriented He also deposed that patient was referred to surgery emergency and neuro-trauma emergency for further management and expert opinion.
During his cross-examination, he stated that the patient was hit by a hot blunt object and though he did not record that the nature of the injury as new or old but he stated that as per protocol, old injuries are specifically mentioned as : old injury". So, in absence of any mention of old injuries on the MLC, the injuries on the person of the complainant were new. He also stated that the injury no. 1 and 3 were caused by a sharp object. On a suggestion being put by Ld. Counsel for accused, he stated that "it is wrong to suggest that the injuries sustained by the patient were self-inflicted". 14.2 Dr. Lawish was examined as PW8 and he deposed that MLC No. A1203/11 was prepared by Dr. Nitin Chawla and on Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
State Vs. Manoj & Ors. 2025.10.30
15:27:13
FIR No. 88/2011 +0530
PS Jafrabad Page no. 18 of 25
04.04.2011, injured was called in surgery OPD. He further deposed that as per the clinical notes of MLC, the injury was opined to be grievous and the same was recorded by him at point C and signed at point Z. 14.3 At this stage, it becomes crucial to examine the MLC of complainant Ex.PW6/A. Perusal of the same shows, that there was contaminated incised wound on the right side cheek, extending laterally from the lip horizontally around 5 cm x .5 cm, Burn mark/bullae (chhale) on the left little finger and left ring finger on distal phalanges anteriorly, Superficial cut mark on left palm, tenderness on left side parietal aspect of skull and weapon of injury was stated to be sharp and blunt. 14.4 So, PW1 did explain during his deposition that injuries on his person came to be inflicted by the accused persons. So, from the above, it is evident that the injuries deposed by the complainant i.e. PW1 duly stand substantiated and proved by MLC Ex. PW6/A and also from the testimony of PW6 Dr. Nitin and PW8 Dr.Lawish.
14.5 At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in plethora of the judgments of Ho'ble High Courts as well as the Apex Court, that due weightage should be given to the testimony of the injured witness as the injuries sustained not only prove the presence of the witness at the place of the incident at the relevant point of time but also the injuries per se substantiate and speak for the version of the injured. 14.6 It is a settled law that testimony of injured witness is considered to be very reliable and is accorded a special status Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:27:26 +0530 State Vs. Manoj & Ors.FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 19 of 25 in law. In the case of Bhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421, where it was held as follows:
"The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lands support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. (vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayed v. State PS Jahangir Puri U/s. 324 IPC State Vs. Preeti of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259)".
14.7 In the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324, it was held that "evidence of an injured witness cannot be doubted merely because there is a background of previous dispute enmity between the parties because this could well be the motive of giving assault by the accused on injured witnesses. The evidence of an injured witness has to be appreciated keeping in view that ordinarily a person, who has Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:27:44 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 20 of 25 been assaulted by someone would not allow him to go scot free and falsely implicate persons other than those who actually assaulted him. The evidence of an injured witness stand on a different pedestal as compared to any other witness cited by the prosecution as eye witness, who claims to have seen the incident. Where an injured witness clearly names the person and the assault made on him by those persons which is broadly corroborated with what has been found in the medical report, even though there may not be any mathematical precision with regard to the manner of assault, the evidence of an injured eye witness cannot be lightly thrown aside only on certain minor contradictions and omissions. It cannot be a case of some exaggeration or it could even be some discrepancy in recollecting the whole incident with exactitude and certainty but on certain minor discrepancy disbelieving altogether the testimony of injured eye witness, would be against settled principle of appreciation of evidence."
15. It was argued by Ld,. Counsel for accused persons that the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution w.r.t the arrest of accused persons in his presence and hence a doubt is created in the case of prosecution. This argument, on behalf of the accused persons, is untenable, in light of the testimony of PW1 complainant/injured, which is duly corroborated with the medical evidence.
Digitally
signed by
AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30
15:27:54
State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530
FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 21 of 25
16. It has been held in catena of judgments that when the witnesses are examined after a long gap, there is bound to be some minor discrepancy in their statement. These discrepancies cannot be a ground to acquit the accused, if their testimony is otherwise fully reliable. In Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 3717 it was observed that :
"There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material Digitally dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence."
17. Further in Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 3544 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant, had observed that :
"When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non- discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:28:02 +0530 State Vs. Manoj & Ors.FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 22 of 25 credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness."
18. Apart from the testimony of PW1, the prosecution also examined other formal witnesses, and their testimony was also on the same lines and corroborated with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses and all the witness could very well withstand the litmus test of cross examination.
19. It is a settled proposition of law that, mere non-recovery of weapon of offence does not detract the case of the prosecution, where clinching direct evidence is acceptable. It is also well settled that where unimpeachable ocular testimony, supported by medical evidence is available, non recovery of weapon of assault is of no advantage to the accused. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lakshmi Vs. State of UP (2002) 7SCC 198, where it was held that it is not an inflexible rule that the weapon of offence must be recovered.
Digitally
signed by
AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30
15:28:11
+0530
State Vs. Manoj & Ors.
FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 23 of 25
20. Hence, in view of the cogent, specific, untainted as well as convincing testimony of the injured i.e. the complainant, read conjointly with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses as well as on the basis of medical documents on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the truthfulness of the version of prosecution witnesses.
21. Now, w.r.t the nature of injury on the person of PW1(complainant) as per MLC Ex. PW-6/A, the same has been opined as grievous and the weapon used has been stated as "sharp and blunt". PW6 Dr. Nitin deposed that he had prepared MLC Ex. PW6/A and PW8 Dr. Lawish stated that as per the clinical notes of the MLC prepared and the observation of the injured, the injury was opined to be grievous. There is no record showing hospitalisation of the complainant for sufficiently long period nor there was any emasculation, permanent privation of the sight of either eye, hearing of either ear, privation of any member or joint, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, permanent disfigurement of the head or face or fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. So, the injuries mentioned on MLC Ex. PW6/A do not fall within the definition of "grievous hurt" u/s 320 IPC and therefore, it would obviously not cover the offences u/s 325 IPC and Section 326 IPC. However, as per MLC Ex. PW6/A, injuries suffered by PW1/Complainant Bhupender Rawal, were caused by "sharp and blunt object", consequently, offence punsiahble u/s 324 IPC is made out, which in comparison to Section 325 and 326 IPC, is a minor/ Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.10.30 15:28:19 State Vs. Manoj & Ors. +0530 FIR No. 88/2011 PS Jafrabad Page no. 24 of 25 lesser offence in the eyes of law. As per Section 222(2) Cr.P.C., "When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it."
22. In view of discussion I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 324/34 IPC and not under section 326/34 IPC in this case. I therefore hold accused 1. Manoj S/o Gajraj Singh, 2. Sunder Singh S/o Tek Chand and 3. Krishanpal @ Pal S/o Jay Bhagwan guilty of offence punishable under section 324/34 IPC and they are accordingly convicted for the same.
23. Copy of the judgment be provided free of the cost to the Convicts.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 30.10.2025.
Digitally signed by AAYUSHIAAYUSHI SAXENA Date:
SAXENA 2025.10.30 15:28:25 +0530 (Aayushi Saxena) Civil Judge-03 : Central : THC Delhi : 30.10.2025 This judgment consists of 25 pages and each page bears my signatures.Digitally signed
AAYUSHI by AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date: 2025.10.30 15:28:31 +0530 (Aayushi Saxena) Civil Judge-03 : Central : THC Delhi : 30.10.2025 State Vs. Manoj & Ors.FIR No. 88/2011
PS Jafrabad Page no. 25 of 25