Delhi District Court
State vs Gaurav on 10 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
1. Gaurav
2. Monu
3. Pankaj Mahto FIR No. 268/18
Police Station: Hari Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No. 623/18
2. CNR no. DLWT01-008341-2018
3. Date of Institution 08.08.2018
4. Date of Commission of 13.06.2018 offence
5. Name of the accused i) Gaurav S/o Ishwar Dayal R/o WZ-541, Tihar Village, Delhi
ii) Monu S/o Late Sh. Jai Chand R/o WZ-167, Gali no.3, Tihar Village, Delhi
iii) Pankaj Mahto Digitally S/o Shambu Mahto signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR R/o WZ-166, Tihar Village, TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 14:30:00 Delhi +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 1 of 45 FIR no.268/18
6. Offence Complained of Section 353/332/34 IPC Section 308/34 IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 03.07.2025 judgment
9. Final order Convicted
10. Date of such judgment 10.07.2025 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that on 13.06.2018 complainant Constable Manjeet alongwith HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder went for demolition programme duty at Meenakshi Garden. At about 2 PM they reached at Som Bazar Road, Tihar Village on patrolling duty. There public persons informed them that some boys were consuming alcohol in the park near the Som Bazar. When they reached there they found three boys sitting in the corner of the park. One boy held the beer bottle and two empty bear bottles were lying there. Out of three boys one boy Gaurav was known to the complainant as he saw him roaming in that park. When complainant enquired from them, they started quarreling and stated 'in logo ne hamara jeena haram kar rakha hai" and instigated accused Gaurav "maar saale ke bottle". On this, accused Gaurav hit the filled beer bottle on the left side of his head and bottle was broken into pieces. Blood was started oozing out from his head. His clothes got blood stained. He felt pain on his head (chakkar aa gaye) and fell down on the road. After hitting the bottle on his head, accused Gaurav fled away from there and remaining two accused persons were apprehended by H. Ct. Bijender and Ct. Ravinder. He also came Digitally signed by POOJA to know the name of third accused as Pankaj. In the mean time POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 two persons came there on motorcycle and they took him to 14:30:14 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 2 of 45 FIR no.268/18 DDU Hospital on motorcycle and got him admitted. FIR under Section 186/353/332/308/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
2. Statement of witnesses was recorded. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused persons before the court.
Charge
3. Charge was framed against accused all the accused persons under Section 353/332/34 and 308/34 IPC vide order dated 27.09.2018.
Prosecution evidence
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined sixteen witnesses as under :-
Material witnesses:
(i) PW2: Ct. Manjeet (Complainant) deposed that:
"On 13.06.2018, I was posted as Ct. at PS Hari Nagar, Delhi. On that day, I alongwith H. Ct. Bijender and Ct. Ravinder left the PS vide DD No.29B to attend the demolition programme at Meenakshi Garden, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and at about 02:00 pm when we reached Som Bazar Road, Tihar Village, some public persons met us and informed that some boys are consuming liquor at Som Bazar Park. Thereafter, we went to Som Bazar Park and when we entered into the right side of the park, we saw Digitally that three boys were consuming the liquor while sitting at the signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
corner of the park. We saw that two empty bottle of beer were 2025.07.10 14:30:24 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 3 of 45 FIR no.268/18 lying near them and one filled beer bottle was also lying there. One of them was accused Gaurav, who was well known to me prior to the incident as he was the resident of same area wherein I was beat officer. When I started making inquiries from them, the boy namely Monu, whose name later on revealed, stated that 'in logo ne hamara jeena haram kar rakha hai" and stated to Gaurav "maar saale ke bottle". On this, accused Gaurav hit the filled beer bottle on my left side of head and bottle was broken into pieces. Blood was started oozing out from my head. My clothes got blood stains. I felt pain on my head (chakkar aa gaye) and fell down on the road. After hitting the bottle on my head, accused Gaurav fled away from there and remaining two accused persons were apprehended by H. Ct. Bijender and Ct. Ravinder. I also came to know the name of third accused as Pankaj. In the mean time. two persons came there on motorcycle and they took me to DDU Hospital on motorcycle and got me admitted there. I got treatment in the hospital and got four-five stitches on my head. IO also met me in DDU Hospital and recorded my statement which is EX.PW2/A which bears my signatures at point A. All the three accused persons had quarreled us and obstructed us while we were discharging our duty and caused injuries on my head.
I identify all the three accused persons namely Gaurav, Monu and Pankaj, who are present in the court today. (witness has correctly identified the accused persons). My clothes were also seized in the hospital. My blood sample was also taken in Digitally signed by the hospital by the doctor and he sealed the same in a parcel with POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 the seal of hospital and same was seized by the IO vide memo 14:30:38 +0530 Ex.PW2/B which bears my signatures at point A. SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 4 of 45 FIR no.268/18 I can identify my clothes, if shown to me. At this stage, MHC (M) has produced one yellow envelope having the seal of FSL DSP DELHI. Seal is now opened and from the parcel, one shirt of khaki colour, one pant of khaki colour and one belt are taken out and the same are shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the same which belonged to him and seized by the IO. The said clothes are having blood stains. The parcel also found to contain one white colour cloth having the particulars of this case which appears to be used by the IO for sealing the above articles in the parcel. Shirt, pant and belt are Ex.PW2/A1 (Colly)."
(ii) PW3: HC Bijender deposed that:
"On 13.06.2018, I was posted as H. Ct. at PS Hari Nagar, Delhi. On that day, I alongwith Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Manjeet left the PS vide DD No.29B to attend demolition programme at Meenakshi Garden, Ashok Nagar, Delhi. When we were returning after attending the said programme and reached at Som Bazar Road at about 02:00 pm, some public persons informed us that some boys are consuming liquor at Som Bazar Park under the constructed umbrella in the park. On knowing the same, we went to Som Bazar Park and found three boys were consuming liquor at the corner of right side of the park. We also saw that two empty bottle of beer were lying near them and one filled bottle of beer was in the hand of accused Gaurav. We stopped them not to do so and started making inquiries from them. On this, accused Monu stated "in logo ne hamara jeena Digitally signed by haram kar diya hai" and told to accused Gaurav "maar saale to POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
bottle" and on this, accused Gaurav hit the bottle on the head of 2025.07.10 14:30:51 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 5 of 45 FIR no.268/18 Ct. Manjeet. Due to which, blood started oozing out from his head and bottle broken into pieces. The clothes of the Ct. Manjeet also got blood stains and he fell down on the ground. I apprehended the accused Monu and Ct. Ravinder apprehended accused Pankaj. Accused Gaurav succeeded to ran away from the spot. In the mean time, two boys came there on motorcycle and took the injured Ct. Manjeet to DDU Hospital. On interrogation, we revealed the names of the accused persons. Some one called the police and ASI Chand Singh and ASI Om Prakash reached the spot. We handed over both the accused persons to them and briefed them about the incident. Thereafter, ASI Chand Singh and ASI Om Prakash went to DDU Hospital and they handed over the custody of both the accused persons to us. After some time, both of them returned back at the spot. IO ASI Chand Singh lifted the broken pieces of glass of bottle from the spot and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same in a cloth parcel with the seal of AS. Same were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW3/A. IO also seized the two empty bottles of beer having the label of Kingfisher vide memo Ex.PW3/B and kept the same in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of AS. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and same was handed over to ASI Orn Prakash for getting the FIR registered from PS Hari Nagar, Delhi and he took the same to PS Hari Nagar. IO had also inspected the spot at my instance which is Ex.PW3/C. After registration of the FIR, ASI Om Prakash returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO. Thereafter, IO interrogated the accused persons namely Digitally signed by Monu and Pankaj and on confessing their guilt, he arrested them POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E respectively. Their 14:31:02 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 6 of 45 FIR no.268/18 personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G respectively. All the above said memos bear my signatures at point A. Thereafter, both the accused persons were medically examined from DDU Hospital. Thereafter, after providing them food, they were sent to lock-up. IO recorded my statement. I can identify all the three accused persons namely Gaurav, Monu and Pankaj, who are present in the court today. I can identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage, MHC (M) has produced one cloth parcel having the seal of AS. Seal is now opened and from the parcel, two empty beer bottles having the label of Kingfisher are taken out and the same are shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the bottled which were seized by the IO from the spot. Same are Ex.PW3/A1 (Colly). MHC (M) has also produced another cloth parcel having the seal of AS. Seal is now opened and from the parcel, one plastic container is taken out which found to contain some broken pieces of glass of bottle and the same are shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the same which were seized from the spot by the IO and stated that these are the same pieces of glass of bottle which was hit by the accused Gaurav on the head of Ct. Manjeet. Same are Ex.PW3/A2 (Colly).
(iii) PW8: Ct. Ravinder deposed that:
"On 13.06.2018 he along-with Ct. Manjeet and HC Bijender left the PS to attend the demolition programme and after attending the same, they reached near Tihar village at Som Digitally signed by Bazar where 2-3 boys met them and informed that some boys POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
were consuming liquor in park. They reached Som Bazar park 2025.07.10 14:31:12 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 7 of 45 FIR no.268/18 and saw that 3 boys were consuming beer. One boy was having bottle of beer in his hand and two bottles were lying there near two boys and all were sitting on the ground. they asked them as to why they were sitting there and taking liquor beer. On this they replied that "hume police perasan krke rakha hua hai". They did not furnish their address and told that they are resident of Tihar Village. When they tried to apprehend them, they manhandling with them. Accused Monu instigated the other accused Gaurav "maar sale ke sir par bottle by pointed out the Ct. Manjeet and he (accused Gaurav) hit the beer bottle on the head of Ct. Manjeet. There was some beer in the bottle. On sustaining injury, Ct. Manjeet fell down on the ground and blood started oozing out from his head. Beer bottle was also broken. The uniform of the Ct. Manjeet also stained with blood. Thereafter, all three boys started running from there. He chased the accused Pankaj for about 5-10 steps and apprehended him. HC Bijender apprehended one of the accused Monu. Third accused Gaurav who hit the bottle on the head of the Ct. Manjeet fled away from there. Public persons gathered there. Ct. Manjeet was sent to hospital through two public persons on motorcycle. ASI Chand Singh and ASI Om Prakash reached there and produced both the accused to them. The name of the accused persons revealed on their interrogation. Thereafter, ASI Chand and ASI Om Prakash went to DDU hospital and custody of the both the accused persons with them. After some time, both the ASIs reached there. ASI Chand Singh conducted the proceedings and seized the broken piece of the beer bottle vide memo Digitally signed by POOJA Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point B and kept in the same POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 in plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of AS. IO 14:31:22 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 8 of 45 FIR no.268/18 also seized the two empty bottles of the beer Kingfisher from the spot vide memo Ex.PW3/B bearing his signatures at point B and kept the same in the cloth parcel which also sealed with the seal of AS. IO also prepared rukka and same was handed over to ASI Om Prakash for getting the registration of FIR from PS Hari Nagar. After registration, ASI Om Prakash along-with SI Pankaj reached there. IO interrogated both the accused persons. IO arrested both the accused persons namely Monu and Pankaj vide their arrest memos Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E and their personal search conducted vide Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G. All bear his signatures at point B. Thereafter, both the persons got medically examined from hospital and then they returned to PS. IO recorded his statement and accused persons were sent to lockup. He identified both the accused persons namely Pankaj and Monu. He also identified the two empty beer bottles having the label of Kingfisher which were seized by the IO from the spot as Ex.PW3/A. He also identified the broken pieces of glass of bottle and which were seized from the spot by the IO. Same are Ex.PW3/A2 (Colly). he (accused Gaurav) hit the beer bottle on the head of Ct. Manjeet. There was some beer in the bottle. On sustaining injuy, Ct. Manjeet fell down on the ground and blood started oozing out from his head. Beer bottle was also broken. The uniform of the Ct. Manjeet also stained with blood. Thereafter, all three boys started running from there. I chased the accused Pankaj for about 5-10 steps and apprehended him. HC Bijender apprehended one of the accused Monu. Third accused Gaurav who had hit the bottle on the head of the Ct. Manjeet fled Digitally signed by away from there. Public persons gathered there. Ct. Manjeet was POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
sent to hospital through two public persons on motorcycle. ASI 2025.07.10 14:31:32 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 9 of 45 FIR no.268/18 Chand Singh and ASI Om Prakash reached there and produced both the accused to them. The name of the accused persons revealed on their interrogation. Thereafter, ASI Chand and ASI Om Prakash went to DDU hospital and custody of the both the accused persons with us. After some time, both the ASIs reached there. ASI Chand Singh conducted the proceedings and seized the broken piece of the beer bottle vide memo Ex.PW3/A which bears my signatures at point B and kept in the same in plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of AS. IO also seized the two empty bottles of the beer Kingfisher from the spot vide memo Ex.PW3/B which bears my signatures at point B and kept the same in the cloth parcel which also sealed with the seal of AS. IO also prepared rukka and same was handed over to ASI Om Prakash for getting the registration of FIR from PS Hari Nagar. After registration, ASI Om Prakash along-with SI Pankaj reached there. IO interrogated both the accused persons. IO arrested both the accused persons namely Monu and Pankaj vide their arrest memos Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E and their personal search conducted vide Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G. All bear my signatures at point B. Thereafter, both the persons got medically examined from hospital and then we returned to PS. IO recorded my statement and accused persons were sent to lockup. I identify both the accused persons namely Pankaj and Monu who are present in the court today. I can also identity the beer bottles and broken piece of bottle if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC (M) has produced one cloth parcel having the seal of court seal. Seal is now opened and from the Digitally parcel, two empty beer bottles having the label of Kingfisher are signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
taken out and the same are shown to the witness to which witness 2025.07.10 14:31:40 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 10 of 45 FIR no.268/18 has correctly identified the bottled which were seized by the IO from the spot. Same are Ex.PW3/A1 (Colly).
MHC (M) has also produced another cloth parcel having the seal of court. Seal is now opened and from the parcel, one plastic container is taken out which found to contain some broken pieces of glass of bottle and the same are shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the same which were seized from the spot by the IO. Same are Ex.PW3/A2 (Colly).
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW1: Dr. Sandeep, CMO, DDU Hospital, Delhi deposed that on 13.06.2018 Dr. Sachin Patel, SR, was deputed in the casualty and he examined the patient Manjeet Singh with the alleged history of physical assault over head with glass bottle as told by the patient himself under his supervision. The MLC Ex.PW1/A portion A to A is in the handwriting of Dr. Sachin Patel and bearing his signatures at points B, C & E. MLC Ex.PW1/A also bearing his endorsement at portion X and his signatures at point E. He opined the nature of injury as 'simple' caused by sharp object according to neuro surgery opinion.
(ii) PW-6: Dr. Sachin, SR Casualty Department, DDU Hospital, Delhi deposed that on 13.06.2018 at about 3.20 pm, he medically examined patient with a alleged history of assault over head with glass bottle as told by patient. The patient had sustained CIW approximately 5X1 cm over right Parieto Temporal region. After Digitally signed by examination, the patient was referred to Neuro Surgery POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 department for further management. The MLC Ex.PW1/A 14:31:52 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 11 of 45 FIR no.268/18 except portion X and Y is in his handwriting and bearing his signatures at point A1, A2 and A3 respectively. The injury was caused to the patient with sharp edged weapon. He sealed the clothes ie pants, shirt and belt of the patient in cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of hospital and handed over to IO.
(iii) PW9: Sh. Kamal, deposed that he was music teacher and working at Yuva Shakti Model School, Rohini Section-3, Delhi.
On 13.06.2018, while he was returning back home from work, he reached near Som Bazar road near park on his motorcycle, he found that one police official lying on the road. He with the help of public persons took him to DDU hospital on his motorcycle and got him admitted there. Later on, he came to know the name of police official as Ct Manjeet who was posted at PS Hari Nagar. Later on, IO met him and recorded his statement.
Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW4: HC Bhagwan Singh deposed that on 13.06.2018, he was deputed as DO from 04:00 pm to 12:00 mid night. At about 04:50 pm, he received rukka from ASI Om Prakash sent by ASI Chand Singh and on the basis of which, he got recorded FIR of this case through computer operator. Copy of the FIR is Ex.PW4/A bearing his signatures at point A. Original FIR seen and returned. He made endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW4/B bearing his signatures at point A. He also issued certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW4/C bearing his Digitally signed by signatures at point A. After registration of FIR, he handed over POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 the copy of the same and original rukka to ASI Om Prakash to 14:32:02 +0530 hand over the same to SI Pankaj for investigation.
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 12 of 45 FIR no.268/18
(ii) PW:5 Ct. Ram Kishan deposed that on 19.06.2018 he joined the investigation of this case and he along with the IO and accused Gaurav reached at Tihar Village, Zheel Vala Parka. At instance of accused Gaurav, near the wall of park and under the sand of tree, one polythene was found containing his clothes i.e. one shirt of multi colour and light yellow colour pant. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A, bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, he kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of SS. Thereafter, he got the accused medically examined and produced him before the court. Accused was remanded to J.C. IO recorded his statement.
He identified the case property produced by MHCM i.e. uniform of police. He also identified one T-shirt of multi colour having printing of DRI-FIT on the bottom backside and pant of light yellow colour having embroidery of DKJ which was recovered at the instance of accused Gaurav. Same is Ex.PW5/A-1.
(iii) PW7: ASI Shiv Lal deposed that on 18.06.2018 the investigation of this case was marked to him as IO of this case was on leave. Accused Gaurv moved an application before the concerned court of PS Hari Nagar regarding his surrender. On receipt of the same, he reached at the concerned court of PS Hari Nagar and with the permission of the court, he interrogated accused Gaurav and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/B and thereafter, he recorded his Digitally signed by disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW7/C. All bearing his POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
signatures at point X. SI Sudhir Rathi was also with him on that 2025.07.10 14:32:12 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 13 of 45 FIR no.268/18 day and he moved an application for PC remand of accused and obtained one day PC remand. During the PC remand, i.e. on 19.06.2018, accused Gaurav led them at jheel wala park near wall near with big tree and under the mud near the tree, he took one t-shirt of multiple colour and one pant of light yellow colour and produced the same to him and stated that these were the same which he was wearing the same at the time of incident and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He kept the same in the cloth with the seal of SS. Thereafter, they returned to PS and deposited the parcel in the malkhana and recorded the statement of Ct. Ram Kishan. Thereafter, on the same day, he produced the accused before the court and he was remanded to JC. He identified accused Gaurav. He also identified one T-shirt of multi colour having printing of DRI-FIT on the bottom backside and pant of light yellow colour having embroidery of DKJ. Same were recovered at the instance of accused Gaurav. Same are Ex.PW5/A-1.
(iv) PW10: SI Sudhir Rathee deposed that on 18.06.2018 he joined the investigation of the present case and he alongwith IO ASI Shiv Lal reached Tis Hazari Courts Complex and appeared before the Ld. Duty MM. IO arrested accused Gaurav. Arrest memo Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point B. Personal search of accused Gaurav was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/B bearing his signatures at point B, his disclosure statement Ex.PW7/C bearing his signatures at point A. After the arrest, accused was produced before the Ld MM and he moved Digitally signed by an application for PC remand of accused Gaurav for two days. POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 His application is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signatures at point A. 14:32:36 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 14 of 45 FIR no.268/18 On said application, Ld. MM allowed one day PC remand of accused, thereafter they alongwith accused returned back to PS. IO recorded his statement.
(v) PW11: Ct. Bharat Lal deposed that on 30.06.2018, under directions of IO, he collected three sealed parcels alongwith sample seals from MHC(M) to deposit the same at FSL Rohini.
He collected the said sealed parcels alongwith sample seal through RC number no.120/21/18 dated 30.08.2018 and deposited at FSL Rohini. After depositing the same, he returned back to PS and handed over receipt of FSL to the MHC(M). No alteration or addition took place during his possession. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
(vi) PW12: ASI Sanjay Kumar brought letter issued by ACP (Admin) Sh. Rajpal Dabas regarding the entries of PCR call of the present case. On 13.06.2018, at about 2:30 PM a call was received and the same was recorded through CPCR DD number 181090384. The said call was also forwarded to the concerned PS and PCR van. The said PCR form dated 13.06.2018 is Ex.PW12/A. The letter issued by ACP (Admin) Sh. Rajpal Dabas is Ex.PW12/B bearing the signatures and stamp of ACP(Admin) Sh. Rajpal Dabas at point A and attested copy of letter of deletion of old data of PA-100 system dated 06.09.2022 is Ex.PW12/C bearing signatures and stamp of ACP(Admin) Sh. Rajpal Dabas at point A. Digitally
(vii) PW13: Sh. D.S Paliwal, Assistant Director (Biology) FSL, signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 30.08.2018 three sealed parcels 2025.07.10 14:32:46 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 15 of 45 FIR no.268/18 were received at FSL Rohini for Biology and DNA examination. The same was assigned to him for examination. The seal on the parcel was found intact and tallied with specimen seal forwarded with parcel. After examination, he gave opinion that the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that DNA profile of male origin generated from the source of exhibit 'la' (half sleeved khaki shirt), exhibit 'lb' (khaki pant), exhibit 'lc' (belt)& exhibit '2a' (half sleeved T- shirt) is similar with the DNA profile male origin generated from the source of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of injured Manjeet (blood sample on gauze piece). After examination, the remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal impression of "DSP FSL DELHI" and returned to the forwarding authority. His detailed report Ex.PW13/A bearing his signatures on both pages at points A.
(viii) PW14: Sh. Sanjay Verma, deposed that he was residing at 15/22, Ashok Nagar, Delhi with his family and running confectionary shop at Ashok Nagar. On 13.06.2018, at about 02:00 PM, he went to his house after purchasing foods from Tihar Village, Tandoor Chowk and when he reached near Som Bazar, he saw some persons were quarreling with the police officers and after seeing the same, he made call at 100 number and thereafter, he left the spot.
(ix) PW15: SI Pankaj Prashar deposed that on 13.06.2018, he was present in PS Hari Nagar when ASI Om Parkash handed Digitally signed by over him documents of the present case ie. copy of FIR, tehrir, POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He perused the 2025.07.10 14:32:55 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 16 of 45 FIR no.268/18 documents and upon perusal, he found some anomaly between the contents of tehrir and the contents of FIR, therefore, he clarified the same from DO HC Bhagwan Singh and he recorded his statement in this regard u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he along with SI Om Prakash departed to the place of incident i.e. Som Bazar Park near Tihar Village where he found ASI Chand Singh, (first IO), HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder along with the accused persons namely Monu Gujjar and Pankaj Mahto. He clarified the facts of the case from first IO and at that time the first IO ASI Chand Singh had sealed pullandas pertaining to present case. He interrogated accused persons namely Monu Gujjar and Pankaj Mahto regarding the present case and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E bearing his signatures at point C. They were personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/I and Ex.PW3/G bearing his signatures at point C. He also recorded their disclosure statement Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B bearing his signatures at point A. He along with above stated staff and accused persons searched for another accused Gaurav but he could not be traced. Thereafter, they came back to PS and sealed pullandas in the present case were deposited in the malkhana. On 14.06.2018 accused Monu Gujjar and Pankaj Mahto were produced before concerned court and they were sent to J/C. On 18.06.2018 wanted accused namely Gaurav surrendered before concerned court and proceedings regarding the same were conducted by ASI Shiv Lal Singh. During investigation, he took the injured Ct. Manjit to hospital for his blood sample and on his request, his blood sample was Digitally signed by taken by doctor. Doctor after taking his blood sample sealed the POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
same with the seal of hospital and handed over the same to him 2025.07.10 14:33:06 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 17 of 45 FIR no.268/18 with sample seal which he took into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. He obtained the opinion regarding the nature of injury on the MLC of injured Manjit. Doctor opined the nature of injury as 'simple sharp'. He recorded statements of public persons who took injured Ct. Manjit to the hospital from spot. He also prepared the site plan of the spot Ex.PW3/C bearing his signatures at point B. He also obtained a complaint under Section 195 CrPC from concerned ACP as Ex.PW15/C. Thereafter, he filed chargesheet in the present case against three accused persons namely Gaurav, Monu and Pankaj.
During further investigation the case property of the present case was sent to FSL and he also collected the PCR form Ex.PW12/A and recorded statement of witnesses. He collected the FSL report Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B and filed supplementary chargesheet in the present case. He identified signatures and handwriting of ASI Chand Singh as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of their official work. ASI Chand Singh has expired. Rukka on the file was the handwriting of ASI Chand Singh from point B to B and bearing his signatures at point C, and the same is Ex.PW15/D, seizure memo dated 13.06.2018 Ex.PW2/DA was also in the handwriting of ASI Chand Singh and bearing his signature at point A, another seizure memo Ex.PW3/B was also in the handwriting of ASI Digitally signed by Chand Singh and bearing his signatures at point C, another POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
seizure memo Ex.PW3/A was also in the handwriting of ASI 2025.07.10 14:33:17 +0530 Chand Singh and bearing his signatures at point C. SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 18 of 45 FIR no.268/18
(x) PW16: ASI Om Prakash deposed that on 13.06.2018 he was on emergency duty alongwith ASI Chand Singh. On that day ASI Chand received DD no.26 and on receipt of which he alongwith him reached Som Bazar Chowk, near Tihar Bridge where HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder met them and they had over powered two boys. ASI Chand enquired about their name and came to know as Monu Gujjar and Pankaj Mahto. HC Bijender and Ct.
Ravinder stated that one of the associates of above said persons namely Gaurav who assaulted Ct. Manjeet with the beer bottle had fled away. Two empty beer bottles were lying at the spot and broken pieces of one beer bottle were also lying at the spot. HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder told that broken pieces of bottle was of beer bottle by which the said Gaurav assaulted Manjit on his head. HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder also told that public persons took Manjit to DDU hospital. ASI Chand left Ravinder and HC Bijender at the spot to take care of the spot and also put the custody of both the said persons to HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder and left the spot along with him. When they reached at spot, HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder also told that 3 persons who were consuming liquor and due to which altercation took place between them and one of the said person after assaulting Manjeet with beer bottle on his head fled away from the spot. He came to know name of the third person Gaurav in the hospital when he along with ASI Chand Singh reached at DDU Hospital. He along with ASI Chand reached at DDU hospital where Dr. opined Ct. Manjeet fit for statement. ASI Chand recorded statement of Ct. Manjeet. Dr. handed over to ASI Chand the sealed exhibits Digitally signed by containing uniform clothes and ASI Chand took the same into POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/DA bearing his 14:33:26 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 19 of 45 FIR no.268/18 signatures at B. Thereafter, he along with ASI Chand came back to spot. ASI Chand lifted the broken pieces of beer bottle from spot and keep them in a plastic box and sealed with seal of AS and took into police possession vide Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at D. ASI Chand also lifted the above-said two empty beer bottle on which label of Kingfisher was present and prepared its pullinda and sealed with seal of AS and took the same into police possession vide Ex.PW3/B bearing his signatures at D. ASI Chand prepared tehrir and handed over to get the FIR registered. He went to PS and handed the rukka to Duty officer for registration of FIR. DO registered the FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka. Further, investigation was handed over to SI Pankaj. SI Pankaj was present at PS and he handed over copy of FIR and rukka. SI Pankaj perused the original rukka and copy of FIR and on perusal of same, he found some clerical mistake in FIR and he clarified the same from DO and recorded his statement in this regard. Thereafter, he along with SI Pankaj came to spot. At the spot, ASI Chand, HC Bijender, Ct. Ravinder along with above-said 2 persons were present. ASI Chand handed over the above-said pullinda to SI Pankaj. SI Pankaj enquired from above-said two persons and thereafter arrested them vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E bearing his signatures at B. Their personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G bearing his signatures at B. Their disclosure statements were recorded vide Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B bearing his signature at B. Thereafter, they searched the third person Gaurav but he could not be traced. Digitally signed by POOJA Thereafter, they got medical examination of above-said two POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 14:33:43 persons conducted and came back to PS. He identified the +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 20 of 45 FIR no.268/18 recovered two beer bottle and pieces of beer bottles produced by MHC(M) as Ex.PW3/A2. He also identified the case property produced by MHC(M) i.e. two empty beer bottles having kingfisher label as Ex.PW3/A1.
5. In statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, all the accused persons stated that they were not present at the spot and they have been falsely implicated. No quarrel took place between them and complainant.
Arguments on behalf of the State
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that all the prosecution witnesses have deposed against the accused persons. Three eye witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3 and PW8 corroborated the testimony of each other to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons deserve to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
7. It is argued on behalf of the accused persons that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. persons. It is argued on behalf of accused Gaurav that it is alleged that Ct. Manjeet was hit by beer bottle and blood starting oozing out, however no blood sample was taken by the IO from the spot. Further no chance prints were taken from the beer bottle allegedly recovered from the place of incident. No crime team was called. Constable who recorded DD no.30A is not made a Digitally signed by witness. No road certificate is issued for the seized articles. No POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 entries are made in register no.19 of Maalkhana with respect to 14:33:52 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 21 of 45 FIR no.268/18 seized articles. No forwarding letter is placed on record vide which exhibits were sent to FSL. DD entry 29B, 26A and 30A not proved on record. No public or independent witnesses have been examined. Recovery of clothes of accused Gaurav not proved as per law. MLC of Ct. Manjeet for collection of blood is not proved as per law. Site plan is also not proved. Material contradictions and discrepancies not explained. As per PW2 injury was inflicted on left side whereas MLC showed the injury to be on right side. Cutting of the word blunt in the MLC also creates doubt. No offence is committed by accused Gaurav.
8. It is argued on behalf of accused Pankaj Mahto that there is no legally sustainable evidence against him. In DD no.30A it is mentioned that injury is caused by unknown person with saria. Although the accused persons were known to the members of police team, still unknown is mentioned. Accused Pankaj was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. Besides these arguments, arguments already addressed on behalf of accused Gaurav have been reiterated.
9. It is further argued on behalf of accused Monu that in the MLC it is mentioned that the nature of injury is simple. No doctor opined that the injury sustained is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Place of arrest of accused Monu and Pankaj is doubtful. IO PW15 conceded to the fact that in the Digitally signed by MLC of accused Monu there is no intoxicating history of him POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
mentioned. No injury has been caused by accused Monu to 2025.07.10 14:34:00 +0530 anyone. Accused Monu deserve to be acquitted.
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 22 of 45 FIR no.268/18
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Observation of the Court
11. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on the complaint of Ct. Manjeet Ex.PW2/A stating that on 13.06.2018 he alongwith Ct. Ravinder and HC Bijender left for demolition drive at Meenakshi Garden and Ashok Vihar. At around 2 pm when they were at Som Bazar road they were informed by the public persons that few boys were consuming alcohol at park. They found beer bottle in the hand of one boy and two empty bottles were lying there. He was acquainted with one of the boy named Gaurav as he used to roam around in the park. When he stopped the boys from consuming liquor they started arguing. One of the boy instigated the boy holding beer bottled to teach him a lesson. Upon this accused Gaurav hit him on his head with beer bottle because of which the blood started oozing out. He became unconscious and fell down. HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder apprehended the other two boys and Gaurav fled from the said place. Thereafter two men from the public took him on bike to DDU hospital.
12. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations accused persons have been charged for commission of offence under Section 353, 332, 308 read with Section 34 IPC.
13. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined Digitally signed by POOJA three eye witnesses as PW2, PW3 and PW8. PW2 is the POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 14:34:12 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 23 of 45 FIR no.268/18 complainant and the injured.
14. PW2 when stepped into the witness box reiterated the facts as stated by him in his complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW3 and PW8 corroborated his testimony in all material particulars.
15. Besides these three eye witnesses prosecution examined PW5 Ct. Ram Kishan who joined the IO at the time of recovery of clothes of accused Gaurav from the park. PW1 Dr. Sandeep CMO and PW6 Dr. Sachin examined injured Ct. Manjeet PW2 and proved the MLC Ex.PW1/A.
16. Prosecution also examined other witnesses of arrest, seizure and disclosure. One Ct. Bharat Lal PW11 took the exhibits to FSL. FSL witness PW13 D.S. Paliwal was examined to prove the FSL report Ex.PW13/A.
17. PW9 Kamal was examined by the prosecution. He was the one who took Ct. Manjeet on his bike to DDU hospital. One Sanjay Verma PW14 is an independent witness who upon witnessing a quarrel between some people with police officials, called the police. ASI Sanjay Kumar PW12 entered the witness box to prove the PCR call made on 13.06.2018 at 2.30 pm.
18. The three eye witnesses, independent witnesses, Digitally signed by POOJA doctors and witnesses of investigation were extensively cross- POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 examined by the defence counsels. 14:34:29 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 24 of 45 FIR no.268/18
19. In the light of testimony of prosecution witnesses, I shall proceed to decide the offence with which the accused persons have been charged.
20. The accused persons have been charged with the offence under Section 353, 332, 308 and 34 IPC. For ready reference relevant sections are reproduced herein under:
353.- Assault or Criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
332.- Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
308.- Attempt to commit culpable homicide- Whoever does any Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA act with such intention or knowledge and under such TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 14:34:45 circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 25 of 45 FIR no.268/18 guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
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."
21. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW2 who is the complainant and injured himself. He categorically deposed that on 13.06.2018 he alongwith HC Bijender PW3 and Ct. Ravinder PW8 vide no.29B went to attend demolition programme, on their way back they were informed that some boys were consuming liquor at Som Bazar Park.
22. Upon this they went to inside the park, they saw three boys consuming liquor when they were stopped them to do so, the accused persons started arguing and abusing them. One of the accused Monu instigated accused Gaurav and thus Gaurav hit the beer bottle on his head. Due to the said impact blood started oozing out and he fell on the road.
23. His testimony is corroborated in all material Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR particulars with the testimony of PW3 and PW8. TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 14:34:56 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 26 of 45 FIR no.268/18
24. Prosecution has also examined PW9 Kamal who took PW2 Manjeet to hospital and PW 14 Sanjay Verma who made the call at 100 number when he saw some persons quarreling with police persons.
25. From the testimony of prosecution witnesses it stands proved that Ct. Manjeet was injured in an incident dated 13.06.2018. Now the question which needs deliberation is whether the injuries were caused by the accused persons or they have been falsely implicated as argued by the defence counsels.
26. At this stage it would be pertinent to discuss the legality and credibility of the injured witness.
27. In Mukesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as AIR 2017 SC 2161 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "The depositions of an injured witness should be relied upon, unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the same stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident."
28. In Maqsoodan Vs. State of UP reported as (1983) 1 SCC 218 the Hon'ble Supreme court observed that: "Presence of an injured witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of the TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 14:35:05 incident and they should normally be not disbelieved." +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 27 of 45 FIR no.268/18
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "In a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care." Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "Whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978)."
30. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is therefore necessary for this court to first Digitally signed by determine whether testimonies of material witnesses are reliable POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
and trustworthy. Case of the prosecution is based on the 2025.07.10 14:35:15 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 28 of 45 FIR no.268/18 testimonies of three material witnesses PW2, PW3 and PW8 who are eye witnesses.
31. PW2 Ct. Manjeet is the injured himself and PW3 HC Bijender and PW8 Ct. Ravinder as per the prosecution story were present there. First and foremost it needs to be decided whether the aforesaid three witnesses were present at the place of incident alongwith the accused persons.
32. The prosecution through the testimony of these three witnesses and by relying upon DD no.29B by virtue of which PW2, PW3 and PW8 were sent for demolition drive has tried to prove the presence of three eye witnesses as that place of alleged incident. It is argued on behalf of the accused persons that DD no.29B is not proved as per law as no witness has been examined to prove the said DD.
33. Be that as it may, DD no.29B may not have been proved as per law but prosecution examined PW9 Kamal who categorically deposed that when he reached near Som Bazar road near park he saw one police official, whose name he later came to know as Manjeet was in injured condition. He alongwith help of public person took him to DDU hospital.
34. The name of this witness appears on the MLC Digitally signed by Ex.PW1/A of Ct. Manjeet. Hence it stands proved that Ct. POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 Manjeet was injured in the Som Bazar park on 13.06.2018. 14:35:25 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 29 of 45 FIR no.268/18
35. Having proved injury on the person of Ct. Manjeet at the place of incident on the alleged date, it would now be required to prove whether the injuries were caused by the accused persons as alleged.
36. As has already been discussed above testimony of the injured witness is on a different pedestal then the other eye witnesses. Even for the sake of argument if it is presumed that the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and in order to wreck vengeance from the accused persons or to settle scores they deposed falsely, but an injured witness in order to shield the true culprit would not implicate an innocent falsely when no clear motive for the said act is brought on record by accused persons.
37. I am supported by the judgments of Hon'ble Apex court on the said aspect in "Jarnail Singh Vs. Stgate of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719, Balraje Vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 6 SCC 673 and Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of MP (2010) 10 SCC
259." It is held that "Statement of injured 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 injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time of place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus the testimony of an injured is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person Digitally signed by falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus the evidence of POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 the injured witness should be relied upon unless there was a 14:37:02 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 30 of 45 FIR no.268/18 ground for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradiction and discrepancies therein."
38. In the case titled as "Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State of Maharashtra" MANU/SC/0328/2023" Hon'ble Supreme Court of India gave observation as to how the testimony of an injured person is to be considered. It was held:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the Accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be Digitally signed by taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
due to loss of memory with passage of time should be 2025.07.10 14:37:12 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 31 of 45 FIR no.268/18 discarded."
39. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, testimony of PW2 when scrutinized would reveal that despite extensive cross-examination the same could not be impeached.
40. In the cross-examination by the defence counsels of all the three accused persons the plea of alibi has been taken. It is put to the witness that the three accused persons were not present at the place of incident.
41. In the cross-examination conducted by counsel for accused Monu if it is suggested that he was lifted from the park in presence of his uncle Dharambir on the basis of call details of other accused persons. Further it is suggested that Monu was not present at the spot and has been falsely implicated. Both the aforesaid suggestions are contrary to each other. Either accused Monu was not present in the park at all or that in order to falsely implicate he was arrested in presence of his uncle Dharambir from the park.
42. This uncle Dharambir has not been produced in the witness box to prove the said fact. Accused Monu and Pankaj Mahto were apprehended by PW3 HC Bijender and PW8 Ct. Digitally signed by Ravinder. Both these witnesses have categorically deposed with POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 respect to the said fact and their testimony could not be 14:37:22 +0530 impeached despite lengthy cross-examination.
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 32 of 45 FIR no.268/18
43. Besides testimony of PW3 and PW8 prosecution has also examined PW16 ASI Om Prakash who alongwith ASI Chand Singh reached the park upon receipt of DD no.26.
44. Acquaintance between the three accused persons is undisputed as it is stated in the cross-examination of PW2 Ct.
Manjeet by counsel for accused Monu that he has been falsely implicated on the basis of call details of the other accused persons.
45. The burden of proving the presence of three accused persons together in the park would have been heavy on the prosecution in case they were strangers. But in the present case all the three are known to each other and their presence together in the park cannot be outrightly denied, ignoring the cogent evidence of the injured and other eye witnesses.
46. So far from the evidence as discussed above it is proved on record that Ct. Manjeet was injured and three accused persons were known to each other.
47. It is argued on behalf of accused persons that in case the story of prosecution is believed to be true then the blood which oozed out from the head of Ct. Manjeet PW2 could have Digitally signed by been recovered by the crime team. Even the finger prints from POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 the beer bottle could have been recovered easily in case the 14:37:31 +0530 incident as alleged actually occurred.
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 33 of 45 FIR no.268/18
48. In so far as the said argument is concerned, ideally in case the IO had called the crime team at the spot it would have been easier for the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused persons, however having not done so is yet not fatal as there is ample ocular evidence available on record to prove the guilt of the accused persons otherwise.
49. It is argued on behalf of accused Guarav that recovery of his clothes from the park is not proved as per law. Moreover there is no road certificate regarding the seized articles, taking of blood sample of Ct. Manjeet, uniform of Ct. Manjeet while sending them to FSL placed on record. There is no entry in register no.19 of the Maalkhana regarding the deposit of seized articles. No forwarding letter of the IO is also placed on record vide which the exhibits were sent to FSL.
50. Prosecution examined PW5 Ct. Ram Kishan and PW7 ASI Shiv Lal who categorically deposed that accused Guarav got his clothes recovered from jheel wala park and PW11 Ct. Bharat Lal who took the parcels for depositing the same to FSL Rohini. PW13 D.S. Paliwal from Forensic Laboratory proved his report Ex.PW13/A by virtue of which the blood on the clothes of accused Gaurav matched with that of Ct. Manjeet.
51. Even for the sake of argument it is presumed that the steps taken by the IO were not strictly within the parameters of the Evidence Act, even then the clothes and other recoveries are Digitally signed by only corroborative piece of evidence which if not proved strictly POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
as per law would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. This 2025.07.10 14:37:39 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 34 of 45 FIR no.268/18 evidence would be relevant when there is no cogent ocular evidence available on record.
52. These arguments do not inspire confidence of this court for the reason that there is sufficient oral evidence of injured and eye witnesses available on record to prove the case of prosecution.
53. It is further vehemently argued that prosecution failed to prove DD no.30A where it is mentioned that injury has been caused to Ct. Manjeet by unknown persons through "saria and bottle".
54. In so far as the said argument is concerned though Duty Constable Deepak has not been examined to prove DD no.30A but having not done so would not defeat the case of the prosecution. The fact that "unknown persons" was mentioned in the said DD is concerned the same was not recorded at instance of Ct. Manjeet but by Ct. Deepak himself and in so far as injury inflicted through saira and bottle is concerned the same would have been written on preliminary information received from hospital.
55. It is stated in cross-examination of Ct. Manjeet that he did not meet duty constable in the hospital nor did he know as to who had conversation with duty constable. He further stated Digitally signed by that he disclosed to the doctor as to how the injury was caused. POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
MLC Ex.PW1/A finds mention of the fact "physical assault over 2025.07.10 14:37:48 +0530 head with glass bottle as told by self".
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 35 of 45 FIR no.268/18
56. It is further argued that no public witness has been examined despite the alleged place of incident being crowded place.
57. In so far as the said argument is concerned, it is not always possible to record the testimony of public persons who though witness the incident but are reluctant to appear before the court. But in the instant case PW9 Kamal who took Ct. Manjeet to hospital and PW14 Sanjay Verma who made the first PCR call have been examined to prove that the incident as alleged occurred.
58. It is also argued on behalf of accused Monu and Pankaj Mahto that as per the prosecution story all the three accused persons were consuming alcohol. It is admitted by the IO PW15 SI Pankaj Parashar that in the MLC of accused Monu there is no history of intoxication.
59. As per the witnesses all the accused persons were consuming alcohol and there were two empty bottles lying near them and one filled bottle was used by accused Gaurav to cause injury to Ct. Manjeet. Meaning thereby that two beer bottles were consumed by the accused persons. Now in case in the MLC of accused Monu it has not come that he was intoxicated the same could be for the reason that he consumed less quantity and due to lapse of time the same could not detected but only for the reason that the MLC of accused Monu does not find mention of the said Digitally signed by fact the entire story of the prosecution cannot be discarded. Once POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
his presence is proved at the place of incident with other accused 2025.07.10 14:37:58 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 36 of 45 FIR no.268/18 persons.
60. Reliance is being placed on the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme court in case Balu Sudam Khalde (supra) as to how testimony of injured person is to be considered.
61. The essence of the observation is that the testimony of the injured eye witness is to be considered reliable and trustworthy unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
62. Reverting back to the facts of the present case it would reveal that there are no contradictions in the testimony of Ct. Manjeet who is the injured and also the deposition of eye witnesses PW3 HC Bijender and Ct. Ravinder.
63. The aforesaid observation was made on the premise that the injured witness will not allow the real culprit to escape. It has been proved on record that Ct. Manjeet was injured and he categorically deposed that the injuries were inflicted by accused Gaurav, Monu and Pankaj. Though the accused persons have denied their involvement however they have not been able to bring on record any motive behind false implication.
64. Per contra, testimony of PW2 Ct. Manjeet finds Digitally signed by complete corroboration in the testimony of PW3 HC Bijender POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
and Ct. Ravinder who were present with him at the time of 2025.07.10 14:38:06 +0530 incident and are eye witnesses.
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 37 of 45 FIR no.268/18
65. In contrast to an unimpeached testimony of prosecution witnesses the accused have simply denied their presence at the place of incident and have not brought any motive for their false implication on record. Accused Monu brought the name of his uncle Dharambir in cross-examination of Ct. Manjeet but did not bring him in witness box to substantiate his stand.
66. It is a settled proposition of law that case of the accused is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution but once the foundation of the case is laid by the prosecution by leading cogent unembellished and an unexaggerated evidence, the accused is required to discharge the little burden cast upon him to prove his alibi. In case where the accused fails to discredit the veracity of the statement of the prosecution witnesses he can prove his defence by leading evidence.
67. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I shall decide the charge framed against the accused persons.
68. Firstly the accused persons have been charged for offence under Section 353 and 332 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
69. Before deliberating upon whether offence under Section 353 and 332 IPC is made out against the accused persons or not it would be pertinent to decide the liability of each accused Digitally persons. As per Section 34 IPC where a criminal act is done by signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
several persons in furtherance of their common intention each 2025.07.10 14:38:16 +0530 person shall be liable as if the act has been done by him alone.
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 38 of 45 FIR no.268/18
70. In the instant case it is alleged that all the three accused persons were consuming alcohol together and upon instigation of one the offence is committed by the other. The third does not intervene or stop the two for committing the offence, from this the act being done in furtherance of their common intention stands proved.
71. As has been held above, testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW8 is found to be credible, all three of them being on duty tried to stop the accused persons from doing an illegal act at a public place, all the accused persons not only deterred the police officers from performing their duties but also caused hurt to Ct. Manjeet in the process.
72. Prosecution through the cogent reliable and trustworthy testimony of PW2 Ct. Manjeet, PW3 HC Bijender and PW8 Ct. Ravinder has been able to prove that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed offence. It is inconsequential whether each one of them actively caused hurt to the police officer or not. Since the act committed by one of them is in furtherance of their common intention, hence all the accused persons are equally liable.
73. Further the accused persons have been charged for the offence under Section 308 r/w Section 34 IPC for causing injury to Ct. Manjeet with a beer bottle.
74. In order to prove the offence under Section 308 IPC POOJA TALWAR prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons have Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.07.10 14:39:59 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 39 of 45 FIR no.268/18 requisite intention or knowledge that in case the death is caused they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the same can be ascertained from the actual injury caused as well as the surrounding circumstances.
75. Pre requisite to prove section 308 IPC is intention or knowledge and the injuries caused are such as are likely to cause death.
76. The intention or knowledge on the part of accused persons is to be assessed from the manner in which the injuries were caused, the nature of injuries and the specific part of the body where such injuries were sustained.
77. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is deposed by PW2 Ct. Manjeet that accused Gaurav hit him on head with the filled beer bottle.
78. When ocular testimony is read collectively with the medical evidence i.e. MLC it would be revealed that in MLC Ex.PW1/A of Ct. Manjeet nature of injury is opined as simple. Even Dr. Sandeep CMO PW1 deposed that he had opined nature of injury as simple caused by sharp object. Testimony of Dr. Sandeep is corroborated with the testimony of PW6 Dr. Sachin he too gave a similar opinion.
79. None of the witness deposed that the injury was Digitally sufficient to case death. PW15 IO SI Pankaj Parashar conceded signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
in his cross-examination "It is correct that no doctor opined that 2025.07.10 14:38:28 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 40 of 45 FIR no.268/18 injury sustained by the victim is sufficient to cause death on ordinary course of nature."
80. It has not come on record in the testimony of the doctor that the injury inflicted was sufficient to cause death. On the contrary same is mentioned to be simple and even when sent for opinion of surgeon the same is confirmed to be simple in nature.
81. Ct. Manjeet PW2, PW3 HC Bijender and PW8 Ct. Ravinder have not alleged any pervious enmity with the accused persons for which they would intend to cause their death.
82. Hence it is difficult to hold that accused persons had intention or knowledge to inflict said injury which was sufficient to cause death and hold them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
83. Accordingly I am of the considered opinion that offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. However it is proved on record that injury was caused by the accused Gaurav at the part of the body as deposed by PW2 Ct. Manjeet, PW3 HC Bijender and PW8 Ct. Ravinder. It has already been held in preceding paragraphs that testimony of all the three witnesses is Digitally signed by found to be credible and trustworthy, they deposed that injury POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 caused on the head of Ct. Manjeet was inflicted with the beer 14:38:37 +0530 bottle.
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 41 of 45 FIR no.268/18
84. PW3 and PW8 have correctly identified the pieces of beer bottle with which the injury was caused on the head of Ct. Manjeet. Though the doctor has not given any opinion with respect to injury caused by any specific object but the same is opined to be inflicted with sharp object. It is argued by the defence counsels that in the MLC Ex.PW1/A there is cutting of word 'blunt' and 'sharp' has been mentioned. In so far as the said cutting is concerned it is explained by Dr. Sachin PW6 that he did the cutting and mentioned word 'sharp' after evaluating the injury.
85. Although, prosecution has failed to prove that offence under Section 308 IPC is made out but in view of Section 222 CrPC when offence proved is included in the offence charged, even if the charged offence is not proved the same would not entail acquittal in case the offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence. Section is reproduced herein under:
222. When offence proved included in offence charged- (1)When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.(2)When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.(3)When a person is Digitally signed by POOJA charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 commit such offence although the attempt is not separately 14:38:51 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 42 of 45 FIR no.268/18 charged.(4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied."
86. Offence under Section 324 IPC is a minor offence included within Section 308 IPC. Section 324 r.w Section 34 IPC reproduced herein under:
324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
87. In Anwarul Haq Vs State of UP AIR 2005 SC 2382, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"The expression "an instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" should be construed with reference to the nature of the instrument and not the manner of its use. What has to be established by the prosecution is that the Digitally signed by accused voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt was caused by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
means of an instrument referred to in this Section. The Section 2025.07.10 14:39:00 +0530 SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 43 of 45 FIR no.268/18 prescribes a severe punishment where an offender voluntarily causes hurt by dangerous weapon or other means stated in the Section. The expression "any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death" when read in the light of marginal note to Section 324 means dangerous weapon which if used by the offender is likely to cause death."
88. In view of the law as laid down by Apex Court it is settled law that for the purpose of Section 324 IPC the nature of weapon of offence is critical to determine the liability of the offender. It is also required to be proved that the weapon of offence must be a dangerous weapon and if used can cause death.
89. It has been proved in the preceding paragraphs that the accused used beer bottle to cause injuries to Ct. Manjeet. Beer bottle surely is a dangerous object within the meaning of Section 324 IPC. Further it is also proved on record that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the injured and the injuries sustained by him in the MLC can possibly be caused by a beer bottle.
90. Keeping in mind the aforesaid fact in my considered opinion offence under Section 324 IPC stands proved.
Conclusion:
91. In the light of my discussion above, the testimony of Digitally signed by prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and reliable and the POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of accused 2025.07.10 14:39:10 +0530 persons beyond reasonable doubt.
SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 44 of 45 FIR no.268/18
92. Accordingly accused Gaurav, Monu and Pankaj Mahto are convicted for commission of offence under Section 353/34 IPC, 332/34 IPC and 324/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.07.10 14:40:19 +0530 Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) on 10.07.2025 ASJ-01(FTC) West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi SC No. 623/2018 State. Vs. Gaurav & Ors. Page : 45 of 45 FIR no.268/18