Delhi District Court
State vs Virender Gupta And Ors on 2 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 2388/19
CNR No. -: DLWT020052642017
FIR No. -: 359/2016
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 323/341/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
(1) VIRENDER GUPTA
S/o Nand Lal Gupta
R/o G-264/C, Gali No. 3, Punjabi Basti,
Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
(2) RAJNATH
S/o Palakdhari Yadav
R/o H.No. C-35, near Gumbad, Punjabi Basti,
Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
(3) PAKUSH @ SHOBHNATH
S/o Palakdhari Yadav
R/o H.No. C-35, near Gumbad, Punjabi Basti,
Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
.... Accused Persons
1. Name of Complainant :- Umesh Kumar
2. Name of Accused :- (1) Virender Gupta
Persons (2) Rajnath
(3) Pakush @ Shobhnath
3. Offence complained of :- 323/341/34 IPC
or proved
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02
17:01:41 +0530
Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 1 of 38
4. Plea of accused persons :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 01.08.2016
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 25.04.2017
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 30.01.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 02.02.2026
9. Final Order :- (1) Virender Gupta:
Convicted
(2) Rajnath: Convicted
(3) Pakush @
Shobhnath: Convicted
Argued by -: Sh. Puspendra Verma, Ld. Substitute APP for the
State assisted by Sh. S.C. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for
complainant.
Sh. Nagendra Singh and Sh. Sanchit Sehgal,
Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 01.08.2016 at about 11.45 PM at House No. CN-178, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, the accused persons namely Virender Gupta, Rajnath and Pakush @ Shobhnath, in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant namely Umesh Kumar and voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant, with legs and fists, due to which the complainant sustained simple injuries. As such it is alleged that the accused persons namely Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:01:48 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 2 of 38 Virender Gupta, Rajnath and Pakush @ Shobhnath have committed the offences punishable under sections 323/341/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC). Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons after completion of investigation on 25.04.2017 for the offences punishable U/s 323/341/34 of IPC.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. Accused persons namely Virender Gupta, Rajnath and Pakush @ Shobhnath entered appearance before this court on 22.01.2018. In terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"), all three accused persons were supplied the copy of the chargesheet as well as documents relied upon in the same.
3. On a finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge was framed for the offences punishable U/s 323/341/34 of IPC against the accused persons namely Virender Gupta, Rajnath and Pakush @ Shobhnath on 29.08.2019. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Umesh Kumar (Complainant) PW2 :- HC Mahender Singh (Accompanied with IO at the spot) ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:01:56 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 3 of 38 PW3 HC Shri Krishan (Ist IO) PW4 Rtd. HC Ratan Singh (IInd IO) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Statement of complainant recorded by police officials Ex.PW1/B :- Site Plan Ex. PW 2/A :- Arrest memo of accused person namely Virender Gupta Ex. PW 2/B :- Arrest memo of accused person namely Rajnath Ex. PW 2/C :- Arrest memo of accused person namely Pakush @ Shobhnath Ex. PW3/A :- Tehrir ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC) Ex. AD-1 :- FIR along with certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act without admitting the contents Ex. AD-2 :- Endorsement on rukka Ex. AD-3 :- DD No. 07 A dated 02.08.2016 Ex. AD-4 :- MLC No. 58979 dated 02.08.2016
5. Sh. Umesh Kumar (PW-1) is the complainant in the present case. He took the stand to depose that presently he is working as a hydraulic operator. He further deposed that on 01.08.2016, he had gone to his house at CN-178, Punjabi Basti, near Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat and the said house was purchased by him. PW-1 further deposed that his wife Sunita was living in the said house illegally along with co-accused Rajnath. He further deposed that he had gone at the said place in the night at around 11:45 PM to meet his children. He further deposed that at Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:03:03 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 4 of 38 that point of time, accused namely Rajnath, Shobhnath and Virender Gupta came over there and started to abuse him, the said accused persons even beat him. PW-1 further deposed that the said accused persons thereafter when he was trying to rescue himself, they restrained him and again started to beat him with leg and fist blows and due to the said beatings, he suffered injury on his eyes. He further deposed that the accused persons beat him and made him sit over there and they even made call on 100 number. He further deposed that he was taken by the police officials to Lady Hardinge Medical College and statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded. PW-1 correctly identified all three accused persons, who were present in the court. He further deposed that the police officials prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B at his instance.
5.1. In cross-examination, Sh. Umesh Kumar (PW
1) deposed that he is working as hydraulic operator in an auto part factory in Anand Parbat, Delhi and at present, he is living in Rajasthan Colony in Baba Faridpuri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that he was not residing at CN-178 at the time of incident in question. He further deposed that his wife had taken forceful possession of House No. CN-178 and he does not remember the exact date of having filed the civil case of taking the possession of CN-178. He further deposed that he has two children, both of them are daughters aged about 13 and 11 years. He further deposed that accused Rajnath and Somnath are residing jointly in H. No. C-35 and accused Virender Gupta is staying just opposite the house of accused Rajnath. He further deposed that he does not remember the house number of accused Virender Gupta. He further deposed that his house CN-178 is of approx. distance of Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:03:10 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 5 of 38 3-4 minutes from the house of accused persons. He further deposed that distance between H. No. CN-178 and C-35 is approx. half a kilometre. PW-1 further deposed that PCR call was made by accused persons. He further deposed that he had reached at CN-178 at about 10:00 PM. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had a quarrel with his wife on the topic of meeting his children. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that he had beaten his wife on the day of incident. He further denied the suggestion that he was beating his wife under the influence of alcohol and my children were trying to rescue her. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that he fell down during the process of said beating and rescuing due to which he suffered the injuries in question. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons were not present at the date and time of incident at the spot. PW-1 admitted the fact that there is some other case going on between him and accused persons. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in present case because of the previous cases going on between him and accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons did not cause him injury in question. He further denied the suggestion that he has deliberately identified the accused persons in the Court because of previous enmity. PW-1 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
6. HC Mahender Singh (PW 2) took the stand to depose that on the intervening night of 01/02.08.2016, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as constable and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM. He further deposed that DD No. 7 A was marked to HC Shri Krishan and thereafter, he along with HC Shri ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:03:17 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 6 of 38 Krishan reached at the spot where we came to know that the injured person namely Umesh was taken to Lady Harding Hospital by PCR. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, he along with IO went to Lady Harding Hospital and IO collected the MLC of injured Umesh. PW2 further deposed that they did not find injured Umesh in the hospital and thereafter, they went to police station Anand Parbat. PW2 further deposed that in the morning, the injured Umesh came at PS and gave his statement to HC Shri Krishan and thereafter, HC Shri Krishan prepared tehrir and handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, IO along with injured Umesh left the PS and went to the spot and after getting FIR registered, he along with copy of FIR and original tehrir went to the spot and handed over the same to IO. PW2 further deposed that IO prepared the site plan at the spot and thereafter, accused Virender and Raj Nath were arrested from their respective houses vide arrest memos Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/B. PW2 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 03.08.2016, accused Pakus @ Shobh Nath was arrested from his house vide arrest memo Ex. PW 2/C and all accused persons were released on police bail on the date of their arrest. PW2 correctly identified all the accused persons in the court.
6.1. In cross-examination, HC Mahender Singh (PW 2) denied the suggestion that no DD No. 7 A was marked to IO in his presence. PW2 further denied the suggestion that he was not part of investigation in the present case. PW2 further denied the suggestion that IO had not collected MLC in his presence. PW2 further denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot at any point of time. PW2 further denied the suggestion that FIR was not ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 17:03:25 Date: 2026.02.02 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 7 of 38 registered in his presence. PW2 further denied the suggestion that accused persons were not arrested in his presence. PW2 further denied the suggestion that IO obtained his signatures on the documents in the police station. PW2 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
7. HC Shri Krishan (PW 3) was examined in chief on 22.05.2023 wherein he sated on oath that on the intervening night of 01/02.08.2016, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as head constable and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM. PW3 further deposed that DD No. 7 A was marked to him and thereafter, he along with Ct. Mahender reached at the spot where they came to know that a quarrel had happened and the injured person namely Umesh was taken to Lady Harding Hospital by PCR. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Mahender went to Lady Harding Hospital and he collected the MLC of injured Umesh. PW3 further deposed that they did not find injured Umesh in the hospital and thereafter, they went to police station Anand Parbat. PW3 further deposed that in the morning, the injured Umesh came at PS and gave his statement to him Ex. PW 1/A and thereafter, he prepared tehrir Ex. PW 3/A and handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, he along with injured Umesh left the PS and went to the spot and after getting FIR registered, Ct. Mahender came at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. PW3 further deposed that he prepared the site plan at the spot at the instance of injured Umesh Ex. PW 1/B and thereafter, accused Virender and Raj Nath were arrested from their respective houses vide arrest memos Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/B. PW3 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:03:32 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 8 of 38 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 03.08.2016, accused Pakus @Shobh Nath was arrested from his house vide arrest memo Ex. PW 2/C. PW3 further deposed that all accused persons were released on police bail on the date of their arrest and thereafter, during investigation, he deposited the MLC in the hospital for opinion regarding nature of injury. PW3 further deposed that he collected the result of MLC later on and as per MLC, the nature of injury was opined as simple. PW3 further deposed that thereafter further investigation was handed over to someone else. PW3 correctly identified all the three accused persons in the court.
7.1. In cross-examination, HC Shri Krishan (PW 3) denied the suggestion that no DD No. 7 A was marked to him for investigation. PW3 further denied the suggestion that he had not carried out proper investigation in the present case or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. PW3 further deposed that he does not remember who was the duty officer and computer operator on the day of incident and he had made departure entry in the roznamcha register before leaving the police station for investigation in the present case. He further deposed that he does not remember the said DD entry. PW3 admitted the fact he had not placed the same on record. PW3 further deposed that he had not served any notice to the neighbours for joining the investigation. PW3 voluntarily deposed that he had verbally requested the neighbours to join the investigation but they refused to join. PW3 further denied the suggestion that he had conducted the entire proceedings while sitting in police station. PW3 further denied the suggestion that he prepared all the memos while sitting in police station on his own. PW3 further denied the ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:03:38 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 9 of 38 suggestion that he obtained signatures of the witnesses as well as accused persons on the documents in the police station. PW3 further denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the present case in a fair manner or that he is deposing falsely.
8. Rtd. HC Ratan Singh (PW 4) took the stand to depose that on 05.01.2017, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as HC and on that day further investigation of the present case was marked to him. PW4 further deposed that he perused the file and found that all the investigation were already conducted by the previous IO and thereafter he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted before the Court. He correctly identified all the accused persons in the court.
8.1. Rtd. HC Ratan Singh (PW 4) was not cross-
examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given in that regard.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
9. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of accused was recorded without oath on 16.08.2024 under section 313 Cr. PC. They stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case, by the complainant and that they have not given any beatings to the complainant at any point of time. The accused persons submitted that they want to lead defence evidence and the matter was fixed for defence evidence.
Digitally signed by ANKURANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.02.02 17:03:44 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 10 of 38 DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. During the trial, accused persons led the following oral evidence, in their defence: -
ORAL EVIDENCE DW1 :- Sunita Devi (Wife of complainant)
11. During the course of trial DW-1 Ms. Sunita Devi was examined on 24.02.2025, who is wife of complainant. In her examination in chief, she has stated on oath that on 02.08.2016, she had quarrel with her husband and thereafter she went to her parental house. DW1 further deposed that her husband used to torture her prior to 02.08.2016 also and she went to her parental house along-with her children. DW1 further deposed that after one week she returned to the above-mentioned address along-with her children and she reached at the house at about 09:30 P.M and accused came from behind at about 11:30 P.M. DW1 further deposed that she had not locked the door and her husband had entered into the room in heavily drunken condition. DW1 further deposed that he started beating her and her neighbour Raj Nath, Shobhnath and Virender came to rescue her along-with ladies also. DW1 further deposed that her husband had hit her at her head and fourteen stiches were made during the treatment. DW1 further deposed that thereafter her children called at 100 number and police official had arrived there and took her to the hospital. DW1 further deposed that her children were present at the house when she went to hospital. DW1 further deposed that she returned to the house after treatment however her husband had fled away after the ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:03:50 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 11 of 38 incident. DW1 further deposed that after 2 days of the incident she went to her parental house along-with her children and she did not return to the above mention house after the incident. DW1 further deposed that she came to know from social media from Facebook during the period of lockdown that her husband had remarried with some lady and he had a child also. DW1 further deposed that the said lady had died after the birth of her child and her husband had taken her dead body to her matrimonial house. DW1 further deposed that thereafter she filed a case HMA Number 177/2024 against her husband and it is under trail.
11.1. DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state wherein she has deposed that she does not remember the date and time of incident. DW1 further deposed that she knows the accused persons namely Virender Gupta, Rajnath and Pakush @Sobhnath since 2016. DW1 further deposed that the accused persons live 6-7 houses distance from her house. DW1 further deposed that at the time of incident, her children informed the police telephonically. DW1 further deposed that after incident, the ambulance took her to the hospital and there she was treated and she received 14 stiches on her head. DW1 further deposed that when police arrived, her husband Umesh ran away from the spot. DW1 further deposed that perhaps, Umesh was called at PS Anand Parbat and there he was arrested. DW1 denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
12. On 08.12.2025 Defence evidence was closed on the joint statement of accused persons and the matter was fixed for final arguments. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.02.02 17:03:57 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 12 of 38 ARGUMENTS
13. I have heard the Ld. Substitute APP for the state, who was assisted by Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. counsel for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration of the material appearing on record.
14. It is argued by Ld. Substitute APP for the state that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that complainant is husband of DW1/Sunita, who is living in adultery with one of accused persons namely Rajnath. It is further argued that on the date of incident the complainant went to meet his children and the present incident took place. It is further argued that the testimony of complainant is corroborated by the testimonies of police witness, who have been examined during the trial. It is further argued that the accused persons have examined DW1/Sunita in their defence and from her testimony, as well, it is evident that the accused persons were present at the spot, on the date and time of incident. It is further argued that DW1/Sunita was not able to depose about the date of incident. It is further argued that no MLC or any medical documents have been produced by Sunita, to show that she received any injury on the date of incident. Furthermore, it is argued that the defence witness namely DW1/Sunita is not trustworthy, as there are many contradictions in her testimony. It is further argued that DW1/Sunita got the complainant arrested in a false case, filed by her sister. It is further argued that the accused persons have admitted the MLCs and thus the fact of injury caused to complainant stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Further, the other evidence on record has corroborated the version of the eyewitness and the offences are ANKUR PANGHAL Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 13 of 38 Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:04 +0530 proved beyond any doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
15. Per contra, Ld. counsels for the accused persons have argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the complainant in his initial complaint Ex. PW1/A has admitted that there was a dispute between him and his wife namely DW1/Sunita. It is further argued that the complainant went to meet his children at late night hours, which appears to be unreasonable. It is further argued that the complainant in his complaint Ex. PW1/A has himself stated that the accused persons made call at 100 number. It is therefore argued that if the present offence, would have been committed by the accused persons, then why would they have themselves made a call at 100 number. It is further argued that there is no CCTV footage to present incident. It is further argued that the place of incident is a place where many houses are located but no public witness has been examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that even though MLC has been admitted by the accused persons, the contents of the same were never admitted. It is further argued that perusal of MLC reveals that the nature of weapon used is mentioned as blunt, whereas the complainant has stated that he was beaten by the accused persons with hands and fists. It is further argued that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons as the sister of DW1/Sunita has filed a case against him. Ld. Counsels have submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witness. It is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:10 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 14 of 38 such, it is prayed that accused persons be acquitted for the said offences.
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
16. The accused persons have been charged for the offences of voluntarily causing hurt (S. 323 IPC) and wrongful (S. 341 IPC). In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt, as per Section 319 IPC, to the victim. Similarly, offence under Section 341 IPC is proved by establishing that the accused voluntarily obstructed the victim from proceeding in a direction in which the victim had a right to proceed. The twin conditions of prearranged plan and active participation are to be proved in order to fasten vicarious liability on the accused persons by virtue of Section 34 of the IPC.
17. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 319, 323, 340, 341 & 34 of IPC, which are as follows:
"319. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
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 term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both
339. Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception.--The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 15 of 38
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--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 extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
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."
18. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 323 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. Hurt: The accused should have caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person;
ii. Voluntary act: The hurt should have been caused voluntarily by the accused i.e., with the intention or knowledge that the accused by his/her act will cause hurt to any person; and iii. Hurt not caused on provocation: The hurt must not be caused by the accused on grave and sudden provocation, so as to fall within the ambit of section 334 IPC.
19. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 341 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. Obstruction: The act must obstruct any person; ii. Prevention of movement: The obstruction must prevent that person from proceeding in any direction; iii. No legal justification: The obstructed person must have a right to proceed in that direction; and iv. Voluntary act: The obstruction must have been caused voluntarily.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.02.02
17:04:22
+0530
Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 16 of 38
20. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfil the requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre- arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
21. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of the innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that point towards the guilt of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
22. I have carefully gone through all the records at hand and testimony of the witnesses. After perusal, this court is of the opinion that the points for determination in the present case are:
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:29 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 17 of 38 I. Whether on 01.08.2016 at about 11:45 PM at House No. CN-178, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant namely Umesh Kumar and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 323/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
II. Whether on 01.08.2016 at about 11:45 PM at House No. CN-178, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully retrained the complainant namely Umesh Kumar and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 341/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
23. Events leading to incident - The case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2016 the complainant had gone to meet his children at CN-178, Punjabi Basti, near Gumbad, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi, where his wife was residing with his children. On the said date at about 11:45 p.m., Rajnath, son of Palakdhari Yadav, Pakus @ Shobhnath, and Virender Gupta came and abused the complainant and when he objected, they started beating him in the street outside the house. It is further alleged that when somehow the complainant freed himself and tried to run away, all three again stopped his way, surrounded him, and assaulted him with kicks and punches. It is further alleged that accused Rajnath forcefully punched the complainant on his left eye, causing an injury to his left eye. It is further alleged that thereafter, they again surrounded the complainant, caught hold of him, beat him, and made him sit down. It is further alleged that they then made a call to 100 number and after some time, the PCR arrived and took the complainant to Lady Hardinge Hospital. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:35 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 18 of 38
24. Evidence of injured witness - The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the complainant namely Umesh Kumar as PW-1, who is the star witness of the prosecution. This it becomes important here to discuss the lens with which the testimony of injured witness is to be evaluated. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2023) SCC Online SC 355 where it was observed as follows:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted 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.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:41 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 19 of 38 mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence."
24.1. Furthermore, In Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 712, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"10. It is a general handicap attached to all eyewitnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all the events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone."
Given the fact that each witness has a different perception of facts, natural variations in their versions are bound to appear. As such, it is in this light that the evidence of injured witnesses is to be examined.
24.2. Furthermore, in Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh [2024] 1 S.C.R. 40: 2024 INSC 6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while discussing the importance of testimony of injured witness has held that the importance of injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be over stated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.02.02 17:04:48 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 20 of 38 defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial.
25. Contradictions and Inconsistencies - It has been argued by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons that there are material contradictions in the testimony of complainant. Thus, it becomes pertinent to discuss the law regarding appreciation of evidence of a witness in case there are contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of the said witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has pointed out in a catena of judgments that minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the matter, are of no consequence. In Brahm Swaroop vs. State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288, it was observed, inter alia, as under -
"32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions."
Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (See: State of UP vs. MK Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (2007) 12 SCC 381, State vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 and Prithu vs. State of HP (2009) 11 SCC 588)"
25.1. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the reliability of testimony of an injured witness Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.02.02 17:04:54 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 21 of 38 in light of contradictions and discrepancies in State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, has observed as under -
"27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant 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 lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] , Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] )"
25.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Birbal Nath v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors [2023] 14 S.C.R. 85:
2023 INSC 957, has observed as under -
"... In Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, this Court had held as under:
"24. When an eyewitness 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 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."
25.3. The three judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 09th January, 2025 in a case titled as Goverdhan Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:05:00 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 22 of 38 & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011) [2025] 1 S.C.R. 657: 2025 INSC 47 has held that:
53. To the same effect it was also observed in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) Supp SCC 241 as follows:
"13. ... The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] observed : [SCC p. 756, para 8 : SCC (Cri) p. 824, para 8]..."
25.4. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi very recently on 31st October, 2025 in the case titled State vs. Ram Swaroop & Ors. in CRL.A. 969/2002 held that:
14. Reference in this context can also be made to another judgment in State of U.P. V. Naresh and Ors.
2011 AD (SC) 20 wherein it was observed in the following words:
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant 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 lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a Digitally signed by ANKUR special status in law. The witness would not like or want PANGHAL ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.02.02 17:05:06 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 23 of 38 to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicit a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there were grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
15. The discrepancies/contradictions/improvements which are not material cannot discredit the testimony of an injured witness as was observed in the case titled as Vinod Tyagi & Ors. Vs. State 2013 IV AD (Delhi) 145.
16. Human memory has its own peculiar limitations of retaining, recapitulating, narrating and reiterating etc. It varies from person to person, event to event and from time to time etc. A person may very meticulously and vividly remember certain events, occurrences, persons or acts depending upon his own capacity, the importance attached to the persons, events, time, places, etc. Those very aspects may be too trivial for another person and therefore, little or no memory would be there. It is common that narration of events, etc. varies not only from person to person but the same person may not be able to recall and reiterate a particular thing/event, person/incident with the same precision and chronological order as was the first or the previous narrative was. This does not mean that the person was not privy to the event narrated, as long as the essential aspect remains intact and alive. A slip here or there or mix up about certain aspects would not rob the strength of the narration as long as the inference and impact of the narrative remains unadulterated and unaltered.
17. The discrepancies/inconsistencies etc. are required to evaluated in the real world in real life situations, where minor and trivial ones are to be ignored. A mix up in the face and name, some minor mix up in chronological narrative, time gap, exact timings which document prepared, where and signed by whom first, so on and so forth are not potent enough to uproot the testimony of a witness, if the soul of the narrative remains intact. In this context reference can be made to the judgment State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr reported in 1981 SCC (2) 752, it was held as under:
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person."Digitally signed by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.02.02 17:05:12 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 24 of 38 In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl.A. 25-26/2000), the Apex Court held as under:
"Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW.2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness. 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 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 otherwise acceptable evidence."
26. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the facts of the present case may be considered. The arguments of Ld. Counsels for accused persons are that the complainant has himself admitted that there was some dispute between him and his wife namely Sunita. Further, it is argued on behalf of accused persons that call at 100 number was made by the accused persons. It is also argued on behalf of accused persons that there are material contradictions in the testimony of complainant.
26.1. Further, the complainant has been examined after substantial time has passed. The incident took place in the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:05:18 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 25 of 38 year 2016. The complainant was examined in the year 2023. He has remained on the stand for 7 years. All the other witnesses to the incident, including the police officials, have been examined almost after 7 years after the incident took place. Natural variations occur after passage of time and human memory tends to fade with such passage of time.
27. First of all, it has to be seen, whether the accused persons were present at the spot of incident. The prosecution has examined the complainant as PW-1, who in his initial complaint Ex. PW-1/A as well as in his testimony has very specifically deposed about the presence of all three accused persons at the spot of incident.1 Furthermore, PW1 has correctly identified all three accused persons in the court. The presence of accused persons at spot of incident is also established by the testimony of the defence witness namely Sunita (DW1).2 Thus, the presence of all three accused persons is established beyond all reasonable doubts not only from the testimony of prosecution witness but also from the testimony of the defence witness produced by the accused persons.
27.1. Further perusal of complaint Ex. PW1/A as well as testimony of PW-1/complainant it is revealed that the deposition of witness is categorical regarding presence of accused persons, their utterances and the manner of assault. The witness was cross-examined at length about the incident, but there is nothing on record to suggest that the witness is not reliable. Ld. Counsels have submitted that there are material 1 Umesh Kumar (PW1) has deposed that at that point of time, accused namely Rajnath, Shobhnath and Virender Gupta came over there and started to abuse him, the said accused persons even beat him.
2Sunita (DW1) has deposed that the complainant started beating her and her neighbour Raj Digitally signed by ANKUR Nath, Shobhnath and Virender came to rescue her along-with ladies also.
ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:05:24 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 26 of 38 contradictions in the testimony of complainant but no contradiction was brought forward by the accused persons. The only circumstance which has been pointed out by the defence is that the accused persons have made a call at 100 number and the same is evident from the testimony of the complainant. It is further argued that there is no explanation as to why no PCR call was made by the complainant. In this regard, the fact that a PCR call was made by the accused persons is itself deposed by the complainant PW1 in his examination-in-chief. The fact that the accused persons have made a PCR call is not denied by the complainant. However, merely the fact that accused persons have made a PCR call, does not help the defence.
28. It emerges from the statement of the Complainant that when he had gone to the place of incident, all three accused persons came over there and started to abuse and beat him. The complainant has further deposed that all accused persons restrained him when he was trying to rescue himself. It is further deposed by the complainant that after restraining him, all three accused persons started beating him with legs and started beating him with legs and fists blows due to which he suffered injured on his eyes. The only omission that has been made by the complainant in his testimony is that in the complaint Ex. PW1/A the complainant has in addition to above stated facts has mentioned that accused Rajnath forcefully punched the complainant on his left eye, causing an injury to his left eye.
28.1. Therefore, in light of above-mentioned judicial precedents, the contradictions, inconsistencies and omission highlighted by the learned counsels for the accused Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:05:31 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 27 of 38 persons do not go to the root of the matter. The deposition of the witness regarding the sequence of events and acts of the accused persons are in tandem on major points and mere fact that there are certain minor inconsistencies on certain other details, do not put a doubt on his version.
29. Medical Evidence - The version of the injured persons is supported by medical evidence on record. The accused persons have admitted the MLC No. 58979 dt. 02.08.2016 Ex. AD-4 of the complainant under section 294 CrPC. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that the accused persons have admitted only the document of MLC and that does not amount to the admission of contents of the MLC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Ashok Daga v. Directorate of Enforcement in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8535/2024 (Diary No. 22849/2024) vide order dated 12th July, 2024 has held that calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution along with the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
29.1. In the case titled as Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726: 2024 INSC 800 while interpreting section 294 CrPC has held as under -
"15. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision, in particular, sub- section (3) provides that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That is to say that if the authors of such documents does not enter the witness box to prove their signatures, the said documents ANKUR could Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:05:38 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 28 of 38 still be read in evidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has the jurisdiction in its discretion to require such signature to be proved. In the present case, the documents filed by the investigating agency were all public documents duly signed by public servants in their respective capacities either as Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the autopsy or other police officials preparing the memo of recoveries etc. As such the Trial Court had rightly relied upon the same and exhibited them in view of the specific repeated stand taken by the defence in admitting the genuineness of the said documents. In so far as the police papers which had been signed by private persons like the informant, the same had been duly proved.
16. Thus the only job left for the Court was to appreciate, analyse and test the credit-worthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which was available on record and if such evidence beyond reasonable doubt established the charges, the conviction could be recorded. However, if the evidence was not credit- worthy and worthy of reliance, the accused could be given benefit of doubt or clean acquittal.
17. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, found that the evidence of PW 1 and 2, eye-witnesses to the account, to have fully supported the prosecution story and during the cross- examination, the defence could not elicit anything which could discredit their testimony.
18. Coming back to the applicability of section 294 CrPC, reference may be had to the following judgments of this Court in the case of Sonu alias Amar vs. State of Haryana3 wherein this Court had held in para 30 as follows:
"30. Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 provides a procedure for filing documents in a Court by the prosecution or the accused. The documents have to be included in a list and the other side shall be given an opportunity to admit or deny the genuineness of each document. In case the genuineness is not disputed, such document shall be read in evidence without formal proof in accordance with the Evidence Act."
19. Further, in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana,4 this Court held in para 14 as under:
"14..... It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a document under sub-section (1) to Section 294 CrPC personally from the accused or complainant or the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made by the counsel for defence, on the document filed by the 3 [2017] 8 SCR 151: (2017) 8 SCC 570.Digitally signed
ANKUR by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 4 [2015] 12 SCR 234: (2016) 15 SCC 485. 17:05:44 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 29 of 38 prosecution or on the application/ report with which same is filed, is sufficient compliance of Section 294 CrPC. Similarly on a document filed by the defence, endorsement of admission or denial by the public prosecutor is sufficient and defence will have to prove the document if not admitted by the prosecution. In case it is admitted, it need not be formally proved, and can be read in evidence. In a complaint case such an endorsement can be made by the counsel for the complainant in respect of document filed by the defence."
20. Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs. State of Uttaranchal5 has held in para 21 as under:
"21. It has been argued that non-examination of the concerned medical officers is fatal for the prosecution. However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence admitted the genuineness of the injury reports and the post- mortem examination reports before the trial court. So the genuineness and authenticity of the documents stands proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under Section 294 of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned being examined."
29.2. The version of the injured/complainant is supported by medical evidence on record. In light of the law down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in above mentioned judgments, it can be said that genuineness of MLC of complainant was not disputed and therefore, the MLC may be read in evidence in the trial without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That is to say that if the authors of said MLC do not enter the witness box to prove their signatures, the said MLC could still be read in evidence. Perusal of MLC reveals that the contused lacerated wound on left eyebrow, bruise on backside Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL 5 PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 [2009] 5 SCC 771: (2009) 13 SCC 722. 17:05:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 30 of 38 of neck and bilateral knees abrasion has been mentioned on it. Further, the nature of injury mentioned is simple. Ld. Counsels for accused persons have argued that the nature of weapon used is mentioned as blunt, however the complainant has alleged that the injury was caused to him by fists and blows.
29.3. In medico legal terms the blunt weapon can be any object, instrument or body part lacking a sharp edge or point that inflicts injury through direct mechanical impact, compression, or crushing, rather than cutting. Thus, the argument put forwarded by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons does not have merits, because as per the testimony of complainant, the injury was caused to by the accused persons with legs and fists blows, which can be considered as a blunt weapon in medico legal terms. Furthermore, the complainant has deposed about being beaten by the accused persons, which is corroborated by the MLC of complainant and vice versa.
30. Official witnesses - The police officials examined by the prosecution include the first responders, the officials who investigated the case and other formal witnesses. These witnesses have deposed about the events that unfolded pursuant to the incident. PW2/HC Mahender is the police official who accompanied the IO/PW3 HC Shir Krishan to the spot. The role of the witness is that he accompanied the IO to the spot and has deposed about the manner in which FIR was registered and arrest of accused persons and their release on police bail.
30.1. PW3/Shri Krishan is the first IO in present case and he has deposed about recording of statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A, preparation of tehrir Ex. PW3/A, manner Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 17:05:57 Date: 2026.02.02 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 31 of 38 of registration of FIR, preparation of site plan Ex. PW1/B at the instance of complainant, arrest of accused persons, their release on police bail and obtaining final opinion on nature of injury in MLC of complainant as simple.
30.2. PW4/Retd. HC Ratan Singh is the second IO in present case and he has deposed regarding preparation of chargesheet and submitting before court. No arguments were advanced by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons with respect to the contradictions/inconsistencies/omissions in the testimonies of these formal witnesses. Furthermore, the police witnesses are only relevant to prove the investigation conducted after the incident. The version of these witnesses generally corroborates the claims of the public witness. Like other witnesses, these witnesses have also been examined after considerable duration of the incident. The fact that they have deposed differently about certain facts cannot be a ground to disbelieve the whole case of the prosecution.
31. Defence of accused - The accused persons in their statements recorded U/s 313 CrPC have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case, by the complainant and that they have not given any beatings to the complainant at any point of time. The defence has tendered into evidence the deposition of wife of complainant namely Sunita as DW1 who has deposed that she had quarrel with the complainant on 02.08.2016 and thereafter, she had gone to her paternal home and after one week she returned to the place of incident.6 Thus, as per the testimony of DW1 the 6 DW1 has stated on oath that on 02.08.2016, she had quarrel with her husband and thereafter she went to her parental house. DW1 further deposed that her husband used to torture her prior to 02.08.2016 also and she went to her parental house along-with her children. DW1 Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR Date:
further deposed that after one week she returned to the above-mentioned address along-with PANGHAL 2026.02.02 17:06:06 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 32 of 38 date of incident is after one week of 02.08.2016. Further in her cross-examination she has deposed that she does not remember the date and time of incident.
31.1. Further, DW1 has deposed that the complainant entered the place of incident in a drunk condition.
However, the MLC of complainant was prepared within 3 hours of incident and on perusal of same nothing has been mentioned regarding the fact that the complainant was found to be in drunk condition or any smell of alcohol was coming from his mouth. Rather, the MLC mentions that the complainant was conscious and oriented. DW1 has deposed that the accused persons came at the spot along with ladies to rescue her. However, the witness has not mentioned names of such ladies, neither they have been examined as witnesses by the accused persons. It is further deposed by DW1 in her cross examination that the accused persons live 6-7 houses away from her house but no explanation has been provided by DW1 to the fact as to how the accused persons reached at her house, to rescue her.
31.2. Further, DW1 has mentioned in her testimony that she had received head injuries in the scuffle with her husband.7 She has also deposed that she was taken to hospital by the police. However, despite the fact that defence witness has deposed about injury caused to her, no MLC of DW1 has been produced by the witness or accused persons during defence her children and she reached at the house at about 09:30 P.M and accused came from behind at about 11:30 P.M. 7 DW1 has deposed that her husband had hit her at her head and fourteen stiches were made during the treatment. DW1 further deposed that thereafter her children called at 100 number and police official had arrived there and took her to the hospital. DW1 further deposed that her children were present at the house when she went to hospital. DW1 further deposed that she returned to the house after treatment however her husband had fled away after theDigitally signed by incident. ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:06:14 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 33 of 38 evidence. Thus, the testimony of DW1 does not appear to be reliable.
31.3. It is argued by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that apart from complainant there is no public witness in present case. It is further argued that the place of incident is a place where many houses are located but no public witness has been examined by the prosecution. Further, on this point it is also pertinent here to discuss illustration (g) of section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred as Evidence Act) which talks about the fact that the court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Thus, as per section 4 of the Evidence Act the court may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. Perusal of the complaint Ex. PW1/A or the testimony of complainant reveals that no where it has been mentioned that public persons gathered at the spot of incident. Further no question was put to the complainant regarding the fact as to whether any public persons gathered at the spot, at the time of incident. Also, the witness produced by the accused persons has also not deposed anything about the presence of public persons at the spot, at the time of incident. Furthermore, the time of incident is 11:45 pm and at such time there is high probability that no public persons would have been present at the spot. Thus, merely the fact that public persons were not examined by the prosecution, does not help the defence. Therefore, the defence of the accused persons does not appear to be plausible, so as to punch holes in the case of the prosecution. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:06:20 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 34 of 38
32. Moving forward, learned counsels have argued that the complainant has himself admitted that there was prior enmity between him and his wife. In this regard, it is true that motive is a double-edged sword. While it can be a basis for false implication, it can also be a basis for the crime {Refer: Ruli Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 7 SCC 691}. In the present matter, as noted above, the accused have failed to establish their plea of false implication. The evidence of the prosecution inspires confidence. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is also liable to be rejected.
33. As such, on the basis of the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence. The complainant has categorically deposed about the acts done by the accused persons on the fateful day. The versions of complainant duly prove beyond any doubt that the accused persons committed the acts attributed to them, on the date of incident. The deposition of complainant has found due corroboration from the medical record and other evidences on record. Although it is true that there are certain variances in the version of the prosecution witnesses, the same are not of such nature so as to render the whole case of the prosecution doubtful. On material points, the evidence inspires confidence.
34. Regarding Section 34 IPC, it is observed that the provision makes a person jointly acting in concert with others, and in furtherance of their common intent, liable for any act done by any person involved in the offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of MP (2010) 10 SCC 259 has highlighted the ingredients of the provision, inter alia, as under - ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:06:26 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 35 of 38 "49. 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 prearranged 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 circumstances 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 prearranged plan cannot be held guilty of the criminal act with the aid of Section 34 IPC. (See Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 174:
(1963) 1 Cri LJ 100]) ..
52. In Gopi Nath v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620] this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 625, para 8) "8. ... Even the doing of separate, similar or diverse acts by several persons, so long as they are done in furtherance of a common intention, render each of such persons liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for the whole of the criminal action--be it that it was not overt or was only a covert act or merely an omission constituting an illegal omission. The section, therefore, has been held to be attracted even where the acts committed by the different confederates are different when it is established in one way or the other that all of them participated and engaged themselves in furtherance of the common intention which might be of a preconcerted or prearranged plan or one manifested or developed on the spur of the moment in the course of the commission of the offence. The common intention or the intention of the individual concerned in furtherance of the common intention could be proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. The ultimate decision, at any rate, would invariably depend upon the inferences deducible from the circumstances of each case." (emphasis supplied) 34.1. In view of the above observations, the evidence on record is to be evaluated. As observed, the deposition of the complainant is that on the date of incident, the accused persons namely Rajnath, Shobhnath and Virender Gupta came at ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:06:33 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 36 of 38 the spot of incident and started to abuse him and the said accused persons even beat him. PW-1/complainant has further deposed that the said accused persons thereafter when he was trying to rescue himself, restrained him and again started to beat him with leg and fist blows and due to the said beatings, he suffered injury on his eyes. The complainant has also attributed specific roles to the accused persons. The material on record is sufficient to conclude that the accused persons acted in concert to attack the injured person/complainant. On the basis of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the offences with which the accused persons have been charged with.
CONCLUSION
35. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences beyond any iota of doubt. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the required threshold has been met by the prosecution and it has been able to successfully prove that the accused persons have committed the offences under Section 323/341/34 IPC. The accused persons have failed to punch any holes on material aspects in the case set up by the prosecution, despite detailed cross examination of the witnesses and even after leading defence evidence. The star witnesses of the prosecution, i.e. the injured/complainant, has deposed categorically and cogently about the commission of offences by the accused persons, despite being subjected to lengthy cross examination. The inconsistencies brought out by the accused persons in the case of the prosecution are minor and do not go to the root of the matter. The defence of ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:06:49 +0530 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 37 of 38 the accused persons of false implication remains unproved. However, the evidence qua the commission of offence of criminal intimidation is insufficient.
36. Resultantly, the accused persons namely 1. VIRENDER GUPTA S/o Nand Lal Gupta, 2. RAJNATH S/o Palakdhari Yadav and 3. PAKUSH @ SHOBHNATH S/o Palakdhari Yadav are hereby found guilty and are accordingly CONVICTED of the offences punishable under sections 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
37. The convicts be heard separately on the point of sentence.
38. Copy of the judgment be provided free of cost to the convicts, forthwith.
Announced in open court on 02.02.2026 in the presence of the convicts.
The judgment contains 38 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed byANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.02.02 17:06:56 +0530 (ANKUR PANGHAL) JMFC-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 02/02/2026 Cr. Case No. 2388/19 State vs. Virender Gupta and Ors. Page 38 of 38