Delhi District Court
State vs Sube Singh Ors on 15 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST01-002591-2017
SC No. 173/2017
State versus Sube Singh
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o H. No. 254, Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi
FIR No. : 1426/2014
Police Station : Mehrauli
Under Sections : 341/308/506/509/34/174A IPC
Date of institution : 13.02.2015
Date of arguments : 15.12.2025
Date of pronouncement : 15.01.2026
Appearances:
Sh. Gurbhej Singh Guraya, Ld. Chief Public
Prosecutor for State.
Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused Sube Singh.
JUDGMENT
Following is the brief factual matrix of the case of prosecution. On receipt of DD No. 66-B on 15/08/2014, SI Narender Singh alongwith Ct Hari Krishan reached at the place of incident at in front of H. No. 254, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi where they came to know that injured Sumantra Devi was taken to hospital by her husband. Thereafter, SI Narender Singh went to AIIMS Trauma Centre and obtained MLC No. 444539/2014 of injured Sumantra Devi, wife of Sh. Jile Singh. SI Narender Singh could not meet injured Sumantra Devi in the hospital. SI Narender Singh contacted on mobile phone number Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 1 / 272026.01.15 15:42:51 +0530 9718594856, noted in the MLC of injured Sumantra and on the other side Jile Singh, husband of injured informed SI Narender Singh stated that was busy in his work and later on he with his wife will come to police station for her statement. SI Narender Singh kept DD No. 66-B pending. On 19/08/2024, injured Sumantra Devi came to police station and submitted a written complaint in Hindi. The complaint in Hindi was addressed to SHO, Police Station Mehrauli, narrating complainant Sumantra Devi to be residing at H. No. 254, Village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi with family. Adjacent to home of complainant, there was residence of Amarvati, Jethani of complainant; Sube Singh, nephew of complainant; Renu, wife of Sube Singh; nephew Sohan Singh and niece Rekha. On 15/08/2014 at about 7.45 pm when complainant Sumantra was alone at her home, then aforesaid accused persons namely Amarvati; Sube Singh; Renu; Sohan Singh and Rekha came to home of complainant. At the outset Amarvati started hurling filthy abuses. Complainant asked Amarvati why she was hurling abuses; then Amarvati caught hold of hand of complainant Sumantra Devi and Sube Singh hit danda on the head of Sumantra Devi. Renu pulled hair of Sumantra Devi and threw Sumantra Devi on the ground. Rekha and Sohan Singh started giving leg blows to Sumantra Devi. Blood started coming from the head of complainant Sumantra Devi. Sumantra Devi started shouting, upon which accused persons left complainant Sumantra Devi and ran away. Someone called at 100 number. Police came and took all persons, excepting complainant Sumantra Devi, to hospital. Complainant Sumantra Devi made phone call to her husband and called him. Jile Singh, husband of complainant Sumantra Devi took complainant Sumantra Devi to Safdarjung Hospital (Trauma Digitally signed by GURVINDER SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 2 / 27 GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:43:07 +0530 Centre) where her head injury was stitched and treated. On advice of Doctor, Sumantra Devi took rest at home suffered vertigo (chakkar) and even she was not able to walk. On 18/08/2014 Amarvati had called in-laws of her son namely Shankar and Ravi, who threatened complainant Sumantra Devi to compromise, otherwise it will not be good.
2. FIR was registered for offences under Section 323/341/506/509/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet (i) for offences under Sections 323/506/509/34 IPC against accused Sube Singh; (ii) for offences under Sections323/341/34 IPC against accused Amarvati and Renu;
(iii) for offence under Section 323/34 IPC against accused Rekha; was filed.
3. Magisterial Court summoned accused persons namely Sube Singh, Renu, Amarvati, Rekha and Sohan Singh, earlier on police bail, for offences under Sections 323/341/506/509/34 IPC vide order dated 13/02/2015 for 13/05/2015. Accused persons were admitted to Court bail on 13/05/2015. Copy of charge-sheet and annexed material on record were supplied to accused persons.
4. Vide order dated 27/03/2017 Sh. Sushant Changotra, the then Metropolitan Magistrate-05, South, Saket, New Delhi opined that though the injury of injured Sumantra Devi in MLC was shown to be simple but it was clear that a blow of lathi on the head of PW1 could result in her death; thus material on record prima facie discloses commission of offence under Section 308 IPC as well, which was exclusively triable by the Digitally signed by GURVINDER SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 3 / 27 GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:43:21 +0530 Court of Sessions. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. Charge for offences under Sections 341/34 IPC; 308/34 IPC; 506/34 IPC and 509/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Sube Singh, Renu, Amarvati, Rekha and Sohan Singh on 07/04/2017 by my Ld. Predecessor, which was read over and explained to the accused persons, who after understanding the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to connect the arraigned accused persons with the offences charged, prosecution examined nine witnesses and the Investigating Officer ASI (the then HC) Bhagat Singh as PW10 in examination-in-chief. Cross examination of ASI (the then HC) Bhagat Singh PW10 was deferred on 15/04/2019 as Defence Counsel Mr. Manoj Kumar Chaudhary was not available that day before my Ld. Predecessor. Later thereto since accused Sube Singh and accused Renu did appear on 16/01/2020; NBWs were issued against aforesaid absent accused with notices to their sureties. Later on appearance of accused Renu, she was sent to jail on 09/03/2021 but later vide order dated 10/03/2021 of my Ld. Predecessor, accused Renu was admitted to bail. However, accused Sube Singh did not appear, so process under Section 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued against accused Sube Singh. Vide order dated 09/11/2022 of my Ld. Predecessor, accused Sube Singh was declared a proclaimed person. PW10 ASI (the then HC) Bhagat Singh was cross examined on 09/02/2023.
7. Statements of the four arraigned accused persons Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 4 / 27 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:43:34 +0530 namely Renu, Amarvati, Rekha, Sohan Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded separately by my Ld. Predecessor, wherein aforesaid accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused persons namely Renu, Amarvati, Rekha, Sohan Singh examined Lal Chand as their defence witness as DW1.
8. After hearing the arguments of Ld. Prosecutor for State and the Defence Counsel, vide separate judgment of date 19/04/2024 accused persons namely Renu, Amarvati, Rekha and Sohan Singh were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 308/341/506/509/34 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 28/05/2024 of my Ld. Predecessor, convicts Renu, Amarvati, Rekha and Sohan Singh were ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year, besides which they were sentenced to pay a cumulative fine of Rs.5,000/- each for each of the convicts, totaling Rs.20,000/-; out of which Rs.10,000/- was payable to victim and Rs.10,000/- was payable to State.
9. Proclaimed person accused Sube Singh was arrested on 05/12/2024 vide DD No. 192 A, Kalandra under Section 35.1(d) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (in short BNSS) and Ld. JMFC-05, South, Saket, New Delhi sent the arrested accused Sube Singh to jail, who was produced before my Ld. Predecessor on 07/12/2024 and again sent to jail, where he is till date.
10. Supplementary charge-sheet for accused Sube Singh for offence under Section 174A Cr.P.C was filed by the Investigating Agency and its copy was given to accused Sube Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 5 / 27 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:43:48 +0530 Singh.
11. Charge for offence under Section 174A IPC was framed against accused Sube Singh by my Ld. Predecessor on 07/04/2025, which was read over and explained to accused Sube Singh, who after understanding the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. PW10 ASI (the then HC) Bhagat Singh was cross examined on behalf of accused Sube Singh on 28/03/2025. Three more prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution with respect to offence under Section 174 A IPC. Following are the (1) Chart for Witnesses Examined; (2) Chart for Exhibited Documents; with specified details:
Chart for Witnesses Examined Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No. PW1 Sumantra Complainant/injured PW2 ASI (the then HC) Duty Officer Shammi Lal PW3 Jile Singh Husband of injured PW4 Ct. Chanchal Joined investigation with IO PW5 Ct. Hemlata Joined investigation with IO PW6 Rajender Singh Record Clerk from AIIMS Trauma Centre PW7 Ct. Virender DD Writer at P.S Mehrauli PW8 Ct. Sandeep Joined investigation with IO PW9 SI Narender Singh Inquiry Officer Scribe of rukka PW10 ASI (the then HC) Investigating Officer Bhagat Singh Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 6 / 27 15:44:01 +0530 PW11 Ms. Rashmi Rose JA/Ahlmad in the Court of Sh.
Gaurav Gupta, the then Special Judge NDPS/ASJ (South), Saket Court, New Delhi PW12 HC Vinod Kumar Arrested proclaimed person accused Sube Singh PW13 SI Narendra Kumar Prepared and filed the supplementary charge-sheet against proclaimed person/ accused Sube Singh Chart for Exhibited Documents Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by Ex PW1/A Complaint PW-1 Ex PW1/B Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C Ex PW2/A Copy of FIR PW-2 Ex PW2/B Endorsement on rukka Ex PW2/C Copy of DD No. 55 dated 19/08/2014 Ex PW4/A Arrest memo of accused Amarvati PW-4 Ex PW4/B Arrest memo of accused Rekha Ex PW4/C Disclosure statement of accused Amarvati Ex PW5/A Arrest memo of accused Renu PW-5 Ex PW6/A Certified copy of MLC No. PW-6 444539/15 AUG 2014 of patient Sumantra, examined by Dr. Feeha Benazir Ex PW6/B Certified copy of Transfer Out Form, bearing the signatures of Medical Record Officer Ex PW6/C Original MLC No. 444539/15 of patient Sumantra, examined by Dr. Feeha Ex PW7/A Copy of DD No. 66 B dated PW-7 Digitally SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 7 / 27 signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:44:12 +0530 15/08/2014 at P.S Mehrauli Ex PW8/A Arrest memo of accused Sohan PW-8 Singh Ex PW8/B Disclosure statement of accused Sohan Singh Ex. PW8/C Arrest memo of accused Sube Singh Disclosure statement of accused Ex PW8/D Sube Singh Ex PW9/A Endorsement/rukka PW-9 Ex PW10/A Site plan PW-10 Ex PW5/A Arrest memo of accused Renu Ex PW10/B Personal bond of accused Renu Ex PW4/A Arrest memo of accused Amarvati Ex PW4/B Arrest memo of accused Rekha Ex PW4/C Disclosure statement of accused Amarvati Ex PW10/C Personal bond of accused Amarvati Ex PW10/D Personal bond of accused Rekha Ex PW8/A Arrest memo of accused Sohan Singh Ex PW8/B Disclosure statement of accused Sohan Singh Ex PW10/E Personal bond of accused Sohan Singh Ex PW8/C Arrest memo of accused Sube Singh Ex PW8/D Disclosure statement of accused Sube Singh Ex PW10/F Personal bond of accused Sube Singh Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 8 / 27 15:44:23 +0530 Ex PW12/A Arrest memo of accused Sube Singh PW-12 Ex PW12/B Personal search memo of accused Sube Singh Ex PW12/C Kalandra under Section 35.1 (D) BNSS Ex PW12/D DD No. 192 A
13. On 16/09/2025 my Ld. Predecessor had put all incriminating evidence and material on record in the form of questions to accused Sube Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein accused accused Sube Singh pleaded innocence and false implication and denied to lead any defence evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Gurbhej Singh Guraya, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused Sube Singh and have perused the record including the charge sheet, documents, evidence, brief written arguments and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forth.
15. Sh. Gurbhej Singh Guraya, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State prayed for conviction of accused Sube Singh for the offences charged, submitting that prosecution has been successful to prove its case against accused Sube Singh beyond reasonable doubt and material witness injured/victim/ complainant Sumantra Devi PW1 fully corroborated the version of prosecution that accused Sube Singh had given danda blow on her head, the vital body part, after sharing common intention. Injured/victim/complainant Sumantra Devi was wrongfully restrained, criminally intimidated by threats and during the Digitally signed by GURVINDER SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 9 / 27 GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:44:35 +0530 course of trial, accused Sube Singh absconded and pre-requisites of offence of Section 82 Cr.P.C were also fully complied with.
16. Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused Sube Singh prayed for acquittal of accused on the following premise/ grounds. Accused Sube Singh as well as other accused persons were real victims in this case because complainant and her family members were beating accused Sube Singh, Renu and Amarvati and even earlier accused side lodged complaint against complainant in Police Station Mehrauli. Prosecution has not explained any cogent reason of complainant PW1 having not been taken to hospital by the police personnel. Even there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, who are not truthful. Even MLC of complainant finds no mention of name of assailants, whereas accused Sube Singh is relative of complainant and known to complainant for past several years. Prosecution version is doubtful as PW3, husband of complainant says of having gone for his work on National Holiday of Independence day of 2014. Accused Sube Singh had vacated the H. No. 254, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi in year 2019 and he was not served with any summons at his new place of abode later on. During Covid-19 Pandemic accused Sube Singh lost contact with his Counsel and was unable to receive any updates regarding the dates of hearings of this case. Accused Sube Singh had severed all relations with co-accused and was not in speaking terms with them and was not informed or updated about the ongoing court proceedings. Accused Sube Singh was infact arrested from Noida and not from Maidan Garhi address. The incident in question arose out of a dispute pertaining to ancestral property between complainant and Digitally signed by SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 10 / 27 GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:44:44 +0530 accused persons and several FIRs were pending between the parties, indicating frequent quarrels and mutual hostility. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C executed at address of Maidan Garhi of accused Sube Singh were erroneous. The initial complaint filed by PW1 was after consultation and concocted. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Sube Singh beyond reasonable doubt. Relying upon the cases (i) Rohit Kumar @ Raju vs. State of NCT Delhi & Ors., 2007 (98) DRJ 714 and (ii) Mohd. Imran vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 855; Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Sube Singh prayed for acquittal of accused for the offences charged.
17. The case of the prosecution hinges on the solitary testimony of injured/victim/complainant PW1 Sumantra Devi. To base conviction of accused on interested testimony, it should be free from severe infirmities, material contradictions and inherent improbabilities going to the root of the matter to check and shake the basic version and core of the prosecution case.
18. The following judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case have been enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajan vs The State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1081:-
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.Digitally signed by GURVINDER
GURVINDER PAL SINGH SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 11 / 27 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:44:54 +0530 II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. 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 jettisonning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. 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.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main Digitally signed by SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 12 / 27 GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:45:06 +0530 purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)"
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 Digitally signed by GURVINDER SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 13 / 27 GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:45:18 +0530 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."
Also was held therein that 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 mere denial yet 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 Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 14 / 27 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:45:29 +0530 it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. [See: Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra : (2023) 13 SCC 365].
19. Star witness of prosecution victim/injured/complainant Sumantra Devi is an illiterate home maker lady but has fully corroborated the put forth case of prosecution in material particulars and her testimony is bereft of severe infirmities, material contradictions and inherent improbabilities. I find testimony of PW1 inspiring confidence and it appears to be trustworthy and reliable. In material corroboration of lodged complaint Ex PW1/A; PW1 testified correctly date, time and place of incident and material facts of the sequence of events of incident. PW1 testified that when she was cooking meal at 7.30/7.45 pm on 15th August, three years prior to year 2017 i.e., year 2014 and was alone in her home; then accused Amarvati came to her home and started abusing her, upon which PW1 asked Amarvati as to why she was abusing her. Then accused Amarvati caught hold of hands of PW1. Meanwhile accused Sube Singh also came and gave danda blow on the head of PW1. Accused Renu had caught hold of the hairs of PW1 and pushed PW1 on the floor, due to which PW1 fell down on the floor. Accused Rekha and Sohan started beating PW1 with leg and fists blow. Blood started oozing out from the head of PW1. Accused persons fled away from the spot after leaving PW1 in an injured condition. Police arrived when someone had made call 100 number. Others were taken to hospital and PW1 was not taken to hospital by police; PW1 made a call to her husband PW3, who arrived there and took PW1 to Trauma Centre AIIMS where PW1 was medically treated for her injuries and she Digitally signed by SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 15 / 27 GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:45:40 +0530 received four stitches on her head. PW1 also stated that due to head injury, she suffered vertigo (chakkar) and felt uncomfort in walking. Afore elicited medical condition of PW1 is corroborated by MLC Ex PW6/C, whereby Dr. Feeha Benazir examined PW1 at AIIMS Trauma Centre on 15/08/2014 at 22:06:40 hours when she was brought by her husband PW3 Jile Singh with history of assault and following two wounds were observed by examining Doctor; (i) Laceration 3 X 0.5 cm over Sagittal Suture area of scalp and (ii) Abrasion 2 X 2 cm over right elbow. Afore elicited injuries of PW1 in Ex PW6/C were opined as simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Same fully corroborated the version of PW1 having sustained aforesaid injuries by assault on head by danda by accused Sube Singh. NCCT Head, CX Spine; CXR X-Ray were prescribed for investigation and call was given to Neuro Surgery, Trauma Surgery by aforesaid examining Doctor for further treatment of PW1 in AIIMS Trauma Centre. PW1 testified of having received four stitches on her injury on head. The delay in examination or giving of the statement of PW1 in investigation is appropriately explained on record, as head injury requiring four stitches on head was suffered by PW1, who felt uncomfort in walking, besides having suffered vertigo (chakkar). Put forth medical condition of PW1 makes it ample clear that she was not in a position to even make statement on the night of the incident or immediately there after. True that in Ex PW1/B, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the narration of sequence of events by PW1 before Magisterial Court, there is some variation, but it is never expected from an illiterate home maker lady to vividly narrate in same words, the events of commission of offence, upon her person, as like a video tape is replayed on her mental screen.Digitally signed by GURVINDER
SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 16 / 27 GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:45:52 +0530 Further Ex PW1/B records the basic purport of the sequence of events inter alia of the accused persons sharing common intention; accused Amarvati having held hands of PW1; hairs of PW1 having been held by accused Renu; accused Sube Singh having assaulted by lathi on the head of PW1 and Sohan Singh and accused Rekha having assaulted her.
20. PW3 Jile Singh was called to the place of incident by a telephonic call by his wife/complainant/injured/victim PW1 and he had taken/shifted his wife/injured/complainant/victim PW1 to hospital. PW3 deposed that PW1 received four stitches on her head at AIIMS Trauma Centre. Fourth class educated PW3 also is not so literate to be expected to accurately recall and reproduce the events in precise and in same details as it is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. The powers of observation differ from person to person. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. What one may notice, another may not. By and large people only recall the main purport of the conversation and cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. Also, a witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved, though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. PW3 testified that on the fateful evening he had gone Digitally SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 17 / 27 signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:46:03 outside from his home for some work and received a telephonic call from someone at about 8 pm, informing him that his wife had received injuries after a quarrel and was beaten by arraigned accused persons. Above deposition would not mean that PW3 had a working day on Independence day of year 2014. PW3 is a labourer. Whether such a person cannot go out of his home on evening of public holiday for any personal work? Eye brows raised by defence attributing falsity on version of PW3 for having gone outside home on public holiday of Independence day of year 2014 are bereft of merit and do not hold water or substance to make the testimony of PW3 unreliable or untrustworthy. Every husband owes a duty towards injured/wife to provide immediate medical attention in right earnest to save life and limb of his wife. The act and conduct of PW3 was in that direction. The minor discrepancies and variation in deposition of PW3 would not make testimony of PW3 unworthy of belief or unreliable to carve out any premise for acquittal of accused Sube Singh.
21. PW2 ASI (the then HC) Shammi Lal registered FIR Ex PW2/A when rukka was produced before him by SI Narender Singh at about 8.10 pm. Endorsement Ex PW2/B was made by PW2 on rukka. Copy of FIR and rukka were handed over to IO HC Bhagat Singh. PW2 also lodged Ex PW2/C Kaymi DD no.
55, dated 19/08/2014.
22. PW4 WCt. Chanchal joined investigation with IO HC Bhagat Singh and testified that on 23/12/2014 accused Amarvati and accused Rekha came at police station and accused persons were interrogated and arrested by IO vide arrest memos Ex Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 18 / 27 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:46:17 +0530 PW4/A and Ex PW4/B, besides which IO had also recorded disclosure statement Ex PW4/C of accused Amarvati.
23. PW5 WCt. Hemlata also joined investigation with PW10/IO ASI (the then HC) Bhagat Singh on 26/10/2014 and reached H. No. 254, Village Maidangarhi, where they met accused Renu, who was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex PW5/A and enlarged on police bail.
24. PW6 Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Clerk from AIIMS proved MLC Ex PW6/C of PW1 Sumantra and testified that he identified the signature of Dr. Feeha Benazir thereon as he had seen her signing during the course of official duties. The certificate of Transfer Out Form of PW1 Sumantra was proved as Ex PW6/B.
25. PW7 Ct. Virender, DD Writer, testified that he lodged DD No. 66B Ex PW7/A after he received information at about 8.10 pm on 15/08/2014 from telephone operator regarding quarrel near House No. 254, Maidan Garhi, Harijan Basti near Chaupal. Copy of said DD was given by Duty Officer to SI Narender Bhati and SI Narender Bhati left for the spot with Ct. Hari Kishan.
26. PW8 Ct. Sandeep testified that he had joined with IO HC Bhagat on 25/12/2014 and at about 3 pm accused Sohan Singh came to police station where IO interrogated accused Sohan Singh and arrested him vide memo Ex PW8/A. Disclosure statement Ex PW8/B of accused Sohan Singh was recorded by IO. Also on 25/12/2014 after Sube Singh came to police station Digitally SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 19 / 27 signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:46:29 +0530 at about 5 pm, he was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex PW8/C. IO recorded disclosure statement Ex PW8/D of accused Sube Singh and released him on personal bond.
27. PW9 SI Narender Singh, Inquiry Officer testified that on 15/08/2014 on receipt of DD No. 66B, he with Ct. Hari Kishan reached in front of House No. 254, Maidan Garhi, Harijan Basti, New Delhi, where he came to know that injured was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre. PW9 collected the MLC of injured. On 19/08/2014, PW1 Sumantra Devi had come with her husband in police station; PW1/complainant gave a written complaint Ex PW1/A, on the basis of which he had prepared rukka and made endorsement Ex PW9/A and got the FIR registered and investigation was assigned to HC Bhagat Singh.
28. PW10 ASI (the then HC) Bhagat Singh is the Investigating Officer, who testified that on 19/08/2014 Duty Officer handed over him a complaint with copy of FIR, after which he visited the place of incident in front of House No. 254, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi and met injured complainant/PW1 and her husband/PW3 and made enquiries from them. PW10 prepared site plan Ex PW10/A of the place of incident at instance of PW1 and PW3 and recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of complainant/PW1 and her husband/PW3. PW10 also collected MLC of injured from SI Narender Singh. PW10 submitted MLC of injured on 20/08/2014 in AIIMS Trauma Centre for opinion and obtained the medical opinion on 20/09/2014 wherein Doctor had opined the nature of injury as simple. PW10 also got recorded statement of complainant Ex PW1/B under Section 164 Cr.P.C and obtained its copy. PW10 Digitally signed SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 20 / 27 GURVINDER by GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date: 2026.01.15 15:46:41 +0530 with WCt. Hemlata reached House No. 254, Maidan Garhi on 26/10/2014 and interrogated accused Renu and arrested her vide memo Ex PW5/A and released her on police bail vide personal bond Ex PW10/B. On 23/12/2014, accused Amarvati and accused Rekha came to police station where they were interrogated by PW10 in the presence of PW4/Ct. Chanchal and arrested vide arrest memos Ex PW4/A and Ex PW4/B and these accused were released on personal bond Ex PW10/C and Ex PW10/D. PW10 also recorded disclosure statement Ex PW4/C of accused Amarvati. When accused Sohan Singh came to police station on 25/12/2014, he was interrogated by PW10 in the presence of PW8/Ct. Sandeep and arrested vide memo Ex PW8/A. PW10 recorded disclosure statement Ex PW8/B of accused Sohan Singh and released him on personal bond Ex PW10/E. On 25/12/2014, accused Sube Singh came to police station where he was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex PW8/C and his disclosure statement Ex PW8/D was recorded. PW10 released accused Sube Singh on personal bond Ex PW10/F. PW10 recorded statements of witnesses during course of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C and on completion of investigation, prepared and filed the charge-sheet.
29. After accused Sube Singh did not appear on 16/01/2020, his NBWs were issued as well as notice to his surety was also issued. Accused Sube Singh did not appear even on later dates of hearings and even his NBWs were not executed, so process under Section 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued against Sube Singh. In terms of order dated 16/09/2020 of my Ld. Predecessor, proclamation process under Section 82 Cr.P.C was issued against accused Sube Singh for next date of hearing Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 21 / 27 PAL SINGH Date: 2026.01.15 15:46:53 +0530 27/11/2020. CW1 ASI Bir Singh No. 8725, 7 th Battalion, DAP, New Delhi had testified on 09/11/2022 before my Ld. Predecessor that on 22/10/2020 while working as HC at Police Station Mehrauli, he pasted one copy of the notice on the notice board of the Court and had then gone to the address of accused Sube Singh at House No. 254, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi where he pasted one copy on the wall of the address of accused Sube Singh and he had also got conducted munadi in the area. CW1 has also testified that on 24/10/2020 he had given advertisement in newspapers Hindustan (Hindi edition) and Indian Express (English edition). CW1 has also proved his report Ex CW1/A for execution of aforesaid proclamation process against accused Sube Singh on 22/10/2020 for next date of hearing 27/11/2020. There was more than 30 days time period accordingly after execution of process of proclamation on 22/10/2020 and publication in the aforesaid process in newspapers on 24/10/2020 for appearance of the accused Sube Singh on 27/11/2020 in the Court. Despite aforesaid execution of the process of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C; accused Sube Singh did not appear on or before 27/11/2020 before my Ld. Predecessor and even later on subsequent dates of hearings before he was arrested on 05/12/2024. After recording of the statement of CW1 ASI Bir Singh on 09/11/2022, accused Sube Singh was declared proclaimed person by my Ld. Predecessor on 09/11/2022. The address of accused Sube Singh given by him at the time of his arrest; address given by him in his personal bond on being released on police bail was House No. 254, Maidangarhi, New Delhi. Charge-sheet finds mention of the address of accused Sube Singh as House No. 254, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi. Before or after shifting of his residence from address Digitally signed by GURVINDER SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 22 / 27 GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:47:04 +0530 House No. 254, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi, accused Sube Singh did not intimate the trial Court i.e., this Court, the then presided over by my Ld. Predecessor(s) of his shifting of residence or change to any address for communication for any future purposes; for which he was duty bound, as per law. In the case of Mohd. Imran vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra), the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C was issued against accused at wrong address. Also therein the issued process was received back as executed on the very day it was issued and it was considered that the said process stood vitiated accordingly. In the case of Rohit Kumar @ Raju vs. State of NCT Delhi & Ors. (supra); accused had less than 30 days from the date of publication of the proclamation, to appear in Court. Facts and circumstances, aforesaid, in relied upon precedents are accordingly different and distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the relied upon precedents are of no help to defence. Accordingly, it is proved on record that despite service of process of publication accused Sube Singh intentionally did not appear before this Court on or before 09/11/2022 and even later but before his arrest on 05/12/2024.
30. PW11 Rashmi Rose, (JA), Ahlmad deposed that accused Sube Singh was declared as Proclaimed person vide order dated 09/11/2022 of Ms. Monika Saroha, Ld. Special Judge, NDPS/ASJ (South), Saket, New Delhi.
31. PW12 HC Vinod Kumar testified that on 05/12/2024 he with HC Sumant left Police Station in search of proclaimed offender and for patrolling and on receipt of secret information at 9 pm at MB Road, he went to Gate No. 2 of Saket Metro Digitally signed by GURVINDER SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 23 / 27 GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:47:18 +0530 Station and on pointing out of secret informer, accused Sube Singh was apprehended while sitting in three wheeler and arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW12/A. Personal search of accused Sube Singh was conducted vide memo Ex PW12/B. Accused Sube Singh was sent to hospital for his medical examination. PW12 prepared Kalandra Ex PW12/C. PW12 made arrival entry Ex PW12/D vide DD no. 192A in DD register.
32. PW13 SI Narendra Singh testified that PW12 HC Vinod Kumar arrested accused Sube Singh on 05/12/2024 vide memo Ex PW12/A and personal search of accused Sube Singh was conducted vide memo Ex PW12/B and the DD entry Ex PW12/C was recorded in Police Station. PW13 prepared supplementary charge sheet and filed it before the Magisterial Court.
33. In answer to question number 36 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused Sube Singh stated that complainant was his real aunt (chachi) and there was dispute related to division of the ancestral property between their families. Therein accused Sube Singh stated that he did not do any wrong to the complainant as at the time of incident he (accused Sube Singh) was not present at the spot but complainant and her husband falsely implicated him. Despite giving of opportunity, accused Sube Singh did not enter upon his defence nor wanted to lead evidence in defence and declined to lead defence evidence when offered in question number 39 of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C before my Ld. Predecessor. The plea of alibi of accused Sube Singh to be not present at spot or being elsewhere was to be proved by accused Sube Singh Digitally SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 24 / 27 signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:47:28 since the onus to prove it is on accused Sube Singh. Accused Sube Singh has not proved his alibi of being elsewhere from the place of incident at the time of incident. The earlier recorded deposition of DW1 Lal Chand was with respect to Sonu @ Sohan Singh and Rekha to be at residence of Lal Chand at Faridabad, Haryana and he did not whisper any word about accused Sube Singh to be even at Faridabad, Haryana at the time of incident and on the day of incident accordingly. Accused Sube Singh cannot avail any shelter from deposition of DW1 Lal Chand earlier recorded on 23/05/2023 even in his absence.
34. In view of discussions, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been successful to prove following material facets/facts:-
(1) accused Sube Singh shared common intention with his other co-accused Renu, Amarvati, Rekha and Sohan Singh;
(2) while sharing common intention, accused Sube Singh with co-accused Renu, Amarvati, Rekha and Sohan Singh;
voluntarily obstructed complainant/PW1 Sumantra Devi so as to prevent her from proceeding in which complainant had right to proceed;
(3) while sharing common intention, accused Sube Singh had hit danda on the head of victim/complainant/PW1 Sumantra Devi, causing injuries i.e., (i) laceration 3 X 0.5 cm over Sagittal Suture area of scalp and (ii) abrasion 2 X 2 cm over right elbow; Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 25 / 27 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:47:40 +0530 (4) assault of accused Sube Singh by danda on the vital body part i.e., on the head of complainant/victim/PW1 Sumantra Devi may have caused death of complainant/ victim/PW1 Sumantra Devi not amounting to culpable homicide;
(5) while sharing common intention, arraigned accused including Sube Singh had criminally intimidated complainant/victim/ PW1 Sumantra Devi, threatening her with dire consequences;
(6) arraigned accused while sharing common intention used filthy language and had abused victim/complainant/PW1 Sumantra Devi;
(7) accused Sube Singh intentionally did not appear before the Court of Ms. Monika Saroha, Ld. Special Judge, NDPS/ASJ (South), Saket, New Delhi on or before 27/11/2020 despite execution of proclamation process under Section 82 Cr.P.C on 22/10/2020 by process server by pasting and munadi and on 24/10/2022 by publication in newspapers Hindustan (Hindi edition) and Indian Express (English edition); whereas even later and before arrest on 05/12/2024, accused Sube Singh did not appear before this Trial Court.
35. Entire above discussions have led me to the conclusion Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 26 / 27 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15 15:47:50 +0530 that prosecution has been successful in proving its case against accused Sube Singh beyond reasonable doubt for commission of offences under Sections under Sections 341/34 IPC; 308/34 IPC; 506/34 IPC; 509/34 IPC and 174A IPC. Accused Sube Singh, son of Sh. Dalip Singh is accordingly held guilty and convicted for offence under Sections 341/34 IPC; 308/34 IPC; 506/34 IPC; 509/34 IPC and 174A IPC.
36. Let accused Sube Singh, son of Sh. Dalip Singh be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open Court by GURVINDER
today i.e., 15th January, 2026 GURVINDER PAL SINGH
PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.15
15:48:06 +0530
(Gurvinder Pal Singh)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
South District, Saket Court, New Delhi (DK) SC No. 173-2017 State vs. Sube Singh P.S Mehrauli Page 27 / 27