State vs Akram 4 Ors on 9 May, 2025

Delhi District Court

State vs Akram 4 Ors on 9 May, 2025

   IN THE COURT OF ALOK SHUKLA, ADDITIONAL SESSION
     JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), EAST DISTRICT,
              KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

CNR No. DLET01-002196-2014
Session Case No. 1038/2016
State versus Akram & Ors.
First Information Report No. 423/2012
Police Station Mandawali
Under Section 308//// Indian Penal Code

In the matter of: -
STATE

                         Versus


(1) Akram
Son of Mohd. Yunus,
Resident of E-429, Gali no. 7,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.

(2) Sazid
Son of Mohd. Yunus,
Resident of E-429, Gali no. 7,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.

(3) Rashid
Son of Mohd. Yunus,
Resident of E-431, Gali no. 7,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.

(4) Sabnam
Wife of Mohd. Akram,
Resident of E-429, Gali no. 7,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.

(5) Heena
Daughter of Mohd. Akram,
Resident of E-429, Gali no. 7,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
(presently residing at Udham Singh Nagar,
Mohalla Jatwara, Uttrakhand)

Date of Institution                      :    17.01.2014
Date of reserve for judgment             :    11.03.2025
Date of decision                         :    09.05.2025

                                 Page no. 1
                            JUDGMENT

1. Accused Akram, Sazid, Rashid, Sabnam and Heena have
been charged with the offence under Section 308/326/34 IPC.
Accused Rashid was also charged with the offence under
Section 325 & 379 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.09.2012, on receiving DD
No. 53A HC Arvind 1105/E along with Constable Arun Kumar
No.2031/E reached the scene of crime at E-428, Street No. 7,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, where on enquiry, it was found that
the victims had been taken to LBS Hospital, Khichdipur, Delhi
and thereafter, they reached LBS Hospital, Delhi, where MLC
No-9951/12, 9952/12 & 9953/12 were obtained. On MLC
No-9951/12, CR-No-139294/12 of Mohd. Shahid S/o Nabi
Rasool R/o E-428, Street No 7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, 36
years, Doctor had mentioned alleged history of Assault, L/E
LW 1X1Cm and traumatic swelling (Rt.) Leg just below knee,
name of injury U/O. On MLC No-9952/12 CR No-139295 Mr.
Nabi Rasool Mohd. S/o Musafir Ahmed Aged 55 years R/o.
E-428 Gali No-7 West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, doctor had
mentioned alleged history of Assault L/E avulsed lower lip 4×2
cm, LW (Rt) side frontal forehead 1x2cm, LW (Rt) side back of
head (occipital), abrasion over chest 1×2 cm, (front), Swelling
(T) 2x2cm, abrasion (Lt) knee, name of injury U/O and on MLC
No-9953/12 CR NO-139295/12 of Md. Zabbar S/o Nabi Rasool
Aged 30 years, doctor had mentioned alleged history of
Assault L/E tendon swelling (traumatic) 2×2 cm, abrasion
0.5×0.5 cm over front of knee (Lt), tender (+) (Lt) thigh,
abrasion upper lip, Name of injury U/O. Victims namely Mr.
Nabi Rasool, Md. Zabbar and Md. Shahid were found admitted
in the hospital. On the treatment slip of injured Mohd. Shahid,
(Rt) Leg Fracture was written and on the treatment slip of
Mohd. Jabbar, (Lt) Leg Fracture was written. The injured Nabi
Page no. 2
Rasool Mohd. S/o Musafir Ahmed Address gave his statement
to HC Arvind 1105/E stating that “Nabi Rasool Mohammed S/o
Shri Musafir Ahmed R/o H.No. E- 428 Gali No. 7 West Vinod
Nagar, Delhi, aged 55 years, phone 9313238287 lives with his
family at the above address and work in Mother Dairy. He
further stated that on 10.09.2012, he was present in his house
and at about 9 PM, after offering Namaz, as soon as he got
ready to eat, he heard some noises from outside the house
and when he looked from the balcony, he saw his neighbours
Rashid, Akram, Sazid, Akram’s wife and daughter Heena were
quarrelling and assaulting his son Jabbar. He immediately
went down to the street near the main door of his house and
tried to intervene but accused persons did not pay and heed
and they all caught hold of him also and started beating him as
well. Akram’s wife and daughter Heena also threw red chilli
powder in his and his son Jabbar’s eyes, due to which they
became very agonised. Meanwhile, Nabi Rasool’s other son
Shahid also came out of the house to save both of them, but
all these people thrashed him as well. Sazid and Rashid beat
him too and they hit Nabi Rasool on his head and on the legs
of his son Jabbar and Shahid several times with the iron rod
they were holding in his hands. Victims started screaming and
shouting but the accused persons did not listen and kept on
fighting and beating them and Rashid bit his lower lip with his
mouth. Nabi Rasool stated that Akram, Sazid, Rashid S/o
Younus R/o H.No. E-431, Gali No. 7 West Vinod Nagar, Delhi
and Akram’s wife and his daughter Heena have injured him
and his son Jabbar and Shahid by beating them and legal
action should be taken against them”. On the basis of the
above statements, examination of MLCS and situation at the
spot, HC Arvind 1105/E sent Constable Arun to get a case
registered at the police station under U/s. 308/323/325/341/34
Page no. 3
IPC and the Duty Officer registered a case bearing FIR No.
423/12 and handed over the investigation to the SI Vijay
Kumar as per the orders of SHO. Thereafter, SI reached the
spot of incident and took the information about the incident
from Head Constable Arvind and after taking the documents
related to the case and recording his statement relieved him
from the investigation. Thereafter, SI went to the house of the
accused persons in search of them, where Akram, Rashid,
Sazid sons of Mohammad Yunus R/o E-431 and E-429, Lane
No. 7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi were present. Accused
persons were arrested and arrest memos were prepared. They
were interrogated about the weapon of offence, but they did
not cooperate in the investigation and did not get recovered,
the weapons used in the crime. Thereafter search was made
for accused Heena D/o. Akram and Sabnam W/o. Akram, but
they had fled from their house. Thereafter Akram, Rashid and
Sazid were produced before the court by SI and they were sent
to JC. On 15.09.2012, statements of victims Jabbar and Mohd.
Shahid were recorded under U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Mohd. Jabbar
stated “he lived with his family at E-428, Street No. 7, Best
Vinod Nagar, Delhi and do his own business and on
10.09.2012 at about 10 PM, he reached in front of his house in
his car Hyundai Accent, then a person named Rashid, who
was his neighbour, came from behind, abusing him (abusing
mother and sister) and carrying a sharp knife in his hand and
caught hold of his collar, pulled him out of the car and attacked
him with the knife. He tried hard to save himself, but Rashid’s
knife touched the back of his right leg and just then, his elder
brother Akram, his wife and daughter Heena came there with
red chilli powder in their hands, of which he was not aware and
threw it directly in his eyes and body. Due to which he got
agonised and meanwhile, Sazid and Akram started hitting him
Page no. 4
with a rod. Akram hit his left leg with a rod due to which he
tripped and fell down. In the meantime, Rashid stole Rs.
80,000/- cash that Jabbar had withdrawn from the bank that
day. That amount was the salary of his workers. Meanwhile,
Jabbar’s father (Nabi Rasool) arrived there to intervene, but
Akram and his wife and daughter threw chilli powder in his
eyes also. His elder brother (Shahid) also arrived there to
intervene but the same thing happened with him also. His
father and elder brother were agonised due to chilli powder on
their bodies. Meanwhile Akram hit Jabbar’s elder brother’s right
leg with a rod due to which he also fell down. Meanwhile, all
these people attacked his father Nabi Rasool. Akram’s wife
was holding him from one side and his daughter was holding
him from the other side because the red chilli powder had
fallen on his eyes and body due to which he was already
agonised. Akram hit him with a rod from behind and started
saying to his other two brothers that these bastards are too
proud of themselves and that day, they have to kill all of them.
Then, Rashid and Sazid attacked his father’s head with a rod
and on his chest with a knife. Meanwhile, Rashid pounced on
his father’s lips and held them between his teeth till he bit it.
His wife called at 100 number in the meantime. She also came
to rescue and she was also assaulted. Meanwhile, PCR came
there and took all of them (Jabbar, Shahid and Nabi Rasool) to
LBS for MLC where after MLC, he and Shahid were sent to
Metro Hospital Preet Vihar for further treatment. Nabi Rasool
had to undergo plastic surgery so he was admitted to MAX
Hospital I.P Extension.”. On 27.09.2012, Dilshad S/o Mohd.
Nabi Rasool (complainant) gave 12 colour photographs of his
father and brothers who were injured in the fight and soaked in
blood to IO which were seized vide seizure memo. Accused
Heena and Sabnam were granted anticipatory bail by the court
Page no. 5
and they were released on bail after formal arrest. On the basis
of statement of victim Mohd. Jabbar and examination of MLC
No. 9952/12 of Nabi Rasool, Sections 324/379 IPC were
added. Doctor gave medical opinion as to nature of injury on
MLC No. 9953/12 of Victim Jabbar and MLC No-9951/12 of
Victim Mohd. Shahid’s as ‘Grievous’. Doctors at LBS Hospital
referred Victim/Complainant Mohd. Nabi Rasool’s MLC
No-9952/12 to Higher Center for final Opinion, where he
received treatment and got plastic surgery of his lower lip done
at “Max Hospital”, I.P Extention and further, treatment of his
head and other parts of the body was done at Apex City
Hospital, West Vinod Nagar, and doctors at both the hospitals
opined the nature of injuries as “Grievous”. Thereafter, Section
326 IPC was added. IO recorded the statements of eye
witnesses. After completion of investigation, chargesheet
under Section 308/325/326/341/379/34 IPC was filed against
accused persons Akram, Rashid, Sazid, Sabnam and Heena.

CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED

3. Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 06.08.2014 framed the
charge for the offences under Section 308/326/34 IPC against
all the accused persons namely Akram, Sazid, Rashid,
Sabnam and Heena. Accused Rashid was additionally,
charged for the offences under Section 325/379 IPC. All the
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION WITNESSES

4. Eighteen prosecution witnesses were examined during the
course of trial.

5. PW1 Nabi Rasool Mohd. S/o Late Sh. Musafir Ahmad, aged
about 58 years, R/o H. No. E-428, Gali No. 7, West Vinod
Nagar, Delhi deposed that he has been residing at the
aforesaid address for last about 15 years and working in
Mother Dairy since 1975. He further deposed that on
Page no. 6
10.09.2012, he was present at his house and at about 9 pm,
he heard noise coming from outside the house, on this, he saw
from the balcony of house that accused Rashid, Akram, Sazid,
Sabnam and Heena were quarrelling and giving beatings to his
son Jabbar. He identified accused Rashid, Akram, Sazid and
Sabnam before the court and stated that he can identify
accused Heena, who was not present in the court and her
identity was not disputed by the Id. Defence counsel. He
further deposed that on this, he immediately reached in the
lane outside main door of his house and tried to intervene but
none of the accused pay any heed and all the accused
persons caught hold of him and also gave beatings to him. He
further deposed that accused Sabnam and Heena threw chilli
powder in his eyes and of his son Jabbar. He further deposed
that in the meantime, his other son Shahid also reached there
and tried to intervene but all the accused persons also gave
beatings to his son Shahid. He further deposed that accused
Sazid and Rashid were armed with iron rods and they gave
iron rod’s blow on his head and his son Jabbar and they also
gave blow with the iron rod on the legs of his son Shahid. He
further deposed that they all were crying but despite that all the
accused persons continued to give beatings to them and
accused Rashid gave teeth bite on his lip. He further deposed
that all the accused persons gave beatings and caused injuries
to them. He further deposed that he made statement
Ex.PW1/A to the police about the incident.

6. PW2 Mohd. Shahid S/o Sh. Nabi Rasool Mohd., aged about 38
years, R/o H. No. E-428, Gali No. 7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi
deposed that he has been residing at the aforesaid address for
last about 7-8 years and in the year 2012, he was working as
Driver. He further deposed that on 10.09.2012, he was present
at his office situated in his house and at about 9.30 pm, he
Page no. 7
heard noise coming from outside the house and on this, he
came out of his house and saw that accused Rashid, Akram,
Sazid, Sabnam and Heena were quarrelling and giving beating
with iron rods and knives to his brother Jabbar and his father.
He identified accused Rashid, Akram, Sazid, Sabnam before
the Court and stated that he can identify accused Heena who
was not present in the court that day and her identity was not
disputed by the Id. defence counsel. He further deposed that
on this, he rushed to intervene. He further deposed that
accused persons threw chilli powder in his eyes and accused
Akram gave iron rod blows on his right leg as a result of which
he fell down. He further deposed that wife of Akram and his
daughter caught hold of him and accused Akram uttered to
them exhorting the other accused persons that “sale ye apne
aap ko bahut bante hein, in salo ko aaj jaan se khatam karna
hai”. He further deposed that accused Akram assaulted them
with iron rod. He deposed that accused Rashid and Sazid
attacked upon his father with iron rod and knife on his head
and chest and accused Rashid also gave teeth bite on the lip
of his father. He further deposed that in the meantime, PCR
Van reached there and took them to LBS hospital, where their
medical examination was done and thereafter, Jabbar and he
had gone to Metro hospital, Preet Vihar for treatment and his
father was got admitted for plastic surgery in Max hospital. He
sustained multiple fracture on his leg due to beatings and
injuries caused by the accused persons.

7. PW3 Mohd. Zabbar S/o Sh. Nabi Rasool, aged about 36 years,
R/o E-428, Gali No.7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092
deposed that on 10.09.2012 between 9 to 10 pm, he was
returning from his office in his Hyundai Accent car bearing
registration no. UP-16S-4383 and as soon as he parked his car
near his house, accused Rashid came from behind holding a
Page no. 8
knife in his hand and grabbed his collar and dragged out of his
car and attacked with knife. He further deposed that he tried to
save himself but accused Rashid caused him knife injury on
back side of his right thigh and in the meantime, accused
Akram, his wife Sabnam and daughter Heena also came there.
He identified all the accused persons in the Court. He further
deposed that all these three put red chilli powder on his eyes
and on his body due to which he felt great pain and thereafter,
accused Akram hit on his left leg with iron rod due to which he
fell down. He also saw that accused Rashid took out Rs.
80,000/- cash from his car which he withdrew from the bank for
the purpose of salary of his workers. He further deposed that
his father Sh. Nabi Rasool came to rescue him but accused
Sabnam and Heena put red chilli powder in his eyes and
thereafter, his brother Shahid also came there to save him but
accused persons also put red chilli powder in his eyes and
accused Akram hit iron rod on his right leg below the knee. He
further deposed that accused Sabnam and Heena caught hold
of hands of his father and accused Akram, Rashid and Sazid,
who had also came there jointly attacked his father. He also
identified accused Sazid in the Court. He further deposed that
accused Akram hit iron rod on his father head from behind and
accused Rashid was having sharp edged weapon and
accused Sazid was having iron rod and they also attacked his
father from the front and caused injuries. He further deposed
that accused Rashid bit on the lower lip of his father so
forcefully and so long that the lip was cut off and thereafter, his
wife called at 100 number and PCR came there, who took
them to LBS hospital for treatment, where their MLCS were
prepared, from there he and his brother went to Metro Hospital
for further treatment and his father went to Max hospital for
surgery. He further deposed that on 15.09.2012, his statement
Page no. 9
was recorded by the police and on 17.03.2013, IO met him at
his house. He handed over statement of account and
registration certificate of his firm to the IO. He pointed out the
documents which he had handed over to the IO and also
brought the originals of registration papers Ex.PW3/A, B and C
(OSR).

8. PW4 Mohd. Dilshad S/o Sh. Nabi Rasool, aged about 34
years, R/o. E-428, Gali No.7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092
deposed that on 10.09.2012, he was present at KFC
restaurant Nokia Sector 18, where he was working as
Restaurant General Manager. However, he did not remember
the exact time but at about 9.30 pm, he received a call from his
elder brother Mohd. Shahid on his mobile phone that some
quarrel had taken place with the neighbours and his brother
asked him to come home immediately and thereafter, phone
was disconnected. He informed his senior officer and
requested him that he should be allowed to go home and from
there, he reached at LBS hospital where he found that his
brothers namely Mohd. Zabbar and Mohd Shahid and his
father Nabi Rasool were admitted. He further deposed that his
brothers were lying on the bed and they had bled profusely
and his father was also badly injured and was having a cloth
on his mouth. He took pictures of all the injured family
members from his mobile phone make Samsung Grand and
after 2-3 days, he got the photographs printed from a nearby
photo studio which were 17-18 photographs. He did not
remember the date but he handed over some photographs to
the IO which were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He saw the
photographs on the judicial file and identified the same Ex.
PW4/B-1 to B-12.

9. PW5 Sh. Prakash Dubey S/o Late Sh. Babban Dubey, aged
about 50 years, R/o 266, Asharam Gali, Mandawali, Delhi
Page no. 10
deposed that the incident had occurred on 10.09.2012. He
deposed that on that day, he parked his car and was going to
his house, when he reached near the house of Nabi Rasool at
about 9.30 pm, he saw that Rashid, Sazid and Akram were
beating Nabi Rasool and Shahid. He had not seen any other
persons beating Nabi Rasool and Shahid. He further deposed
that PCR van came there and he left the spot when police
came. He did not want to say anything else. He identified
accused Akram and Rashid before the Court and stated that
he can also identify remaining accused persons Sabnam,
Heena and Sazid, who were exempted and their identities
were not disputed by Ld. Defence counsel.

10. The witness was cross-examined by Id. Addl. PP for state after
permission of the Court as witness was resiling from his earlier
statement on some material points recorded by the police.
Witness stated that police made inquiries from him on the next
day and his statement was recorded by the police. Witness
admitted that when he reached in front of H. No. E-428 near
Gali No.7, West Vinod Nagar at about 9 pm, he saw Akram,
Sazid and Rashid alongwith their women family members were
beating Nabi Rasool and his family members and he had seen
Akram beating Shahid with an iron rod. Witness admitted that
Nabi Rasool and his family members had sustained injuries.
He also admitted that his statement was recorded by the
police.

11. PW6 Dr. M. K. Saxena, Director, Apex Citi Hospital, West
Vinod Nagar, Delhi deposed that on 13.09.2012, one patient
namely Nabi Rasool Mohd. S/o Musafir Ali was admitted at
Apex Citi hospital. He further deposed that earlier on
10.09.2012, patient was taken to LBS Hospital with alleged
history of assault where his MLC No. 9952/11 was prepared
and thereafter, patient had received treatment at Max Hospital,
Page no. 11
IP Extension and was discharged but on 13.09.2012, patient
came to their hospital with complaint of giddiness and nausea
and remained admitted at hospital for 20 days, who had
multiple abrasions on his face, both arms and lower limbs and
nature of his injuries were grievous as he had suffered facial
disfigurement. He gave his opinion Ex.PW6/A dt. 26.11.2012
upon request of the IO. He had seen copy of one bill no. 1064
dt. 04.10.2012 and stated that bill Ex. PW6/B was attested by
accountant Sh. Vinod Mehta, whose signature he identified on
the document.

12. PW7 Smt. Shadab Heena W/o Sh. Mohd. Zabbar, aged about
38 years, House Wife, R/o E-428, Street No.7, West Vinod
Nagar, Delhi-110092 deposed that on 10.09.2012 at about
9:15/9:30 pm, she heard noises from outside and when she
came in her balcony, she saw that their neighbours namely
Rashid, Sazid, Akram, who were brothers, wife of Akram
namely Sabnam and daughter of Akram namely Heena were
beating her husband, Mohd. Zabbar. She further deposed that
on seeing the same when she raised alarm, her father-in-law
Navi Rasool and brother-in-law (Jeth) Mohd. Shahid also came
out and went down near her husband to save him but accused
persons also caught hold of her father-in-law and Jeth and
started beating them. She further deposed that when she tried
to intervene, Sabnam pushed her down but she did not sustain
any visible injury. She further deposed that at that time, Rashid
was armed with knife and Sazid and Akram were having iron
rods. She further deposed that Rashid gave teeth bite on the
lip of her father-in-law and also hit him with knife and her
husband and Jeth were beaten by iron rods by Sazid and
Akram. She further deposed that she informed the police at
100 number and after some time, PCR van came there and on
seeing the PCR Van and public persons gathering there,
Page no. 12
accused persons ran away from the spot. She further deposed
that at that time, when her father-in-law and Jeth came to save
her husband, Sabnam and Heena threw chili powder in their
eyes. She further deposed that PCR officers took her husband,
Jeth and father-in-law to LBS Hospital and after some time,
when she reached LBS hospital, her husband told her that
Rs.80,000/-, which were kept in his car, were also taken away
by accused Rashid. She identified accused Rashid and Akram
before the Court and also stated that she can also identify
accused Sazid, Sabnam and Heena, who were exempted and
their identities were not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.

13. PW8 SI Vijay Kumar, PIS No. 16080303, PS Mayur Vihar,
Delhi deposed that he was the Investigating Officer in the
present case and he had recorded statement of witness Smt.
Shadab Heena u/s 161 CrPC on 28.09.2012 but inadvertently,
the date was put as 28.11.2005 and the date be read as
28.09.2012, copy of which is Ex.PW8A. He further deposed
that on 11.09.2012, he was posted at PS Mandawali as SI and
at about 12.45 am, Duty Officer informed him about the
present FIR and asked him to conduct the investigation as per
the orders of SHO. He further deposed that Ct. Arun handed
over him original rukka along with the copy of FIR in the police
station and thereafter, he along with Ct. Arun reached at LBS
Hospital from where he came to know that injured persons had
already left the hospital. He came to know that one of the
injured namely Nabi Rasool went to Max hospital Patparganj.
He further deposed that in present case, the statement of Nabi
Rasool was already recorded by HC Arvind Kumar and FIR
was already registered on the statement of Nabi Rasool. HC
Arvind who prepared the rukka, was also present in the LBS
Hospital and informed him that injured persons were not
present in the hospital and handed over the MLCs of all the
Page no. 13
three injured persons. He further deposed that names of the
injured persons were Nabi Rasool, Mohd. Shahid and Mohd.
Jabbar. He further deposed that MLC of Mohd. Shahid is Ex.
PW 16/A, MLC of Mohd. Jabbar is Mark PW 8/A and MLC of
Nabir Rasool is Mark PW 8/B. He further deposed that
thereafter, he along with Ct. Arun reached at Max Hospital
Patparganj, where injured Nabi Rasool was under treatment at
Max Hospital, but his statement could not be recorded as he
was having severe injury on his lips and other parts of his body
and thereafter, they reached at the place of occurrence i.e.
Gali No. 7, H.No. E-428, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. He tried to
find out independent eye witness, however, no one was there
due to late night. He further deposed that the houses of the
accused persons Akram, Rashid, Shajid, Sabnam and Hena
were situated in the same area and all the accused persons
were relative of each other. He visited the house of accused
persons i.e. H.No. E-429 and E-431, but he did not find any of
the accused person as their houses were locked and
thereafter, they returned back to the police station. He
recorded the statements of Ct. Arun and HC Arvind u/s 161
Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on the same day, in the day
time at about 10.30 am, he left the police station with Ct. Vinod
and reached at the spot. He inquired from some public
persons, however, none of them was ready to join the
investigation and thereafter, he reached the house of accused
persons, where Akram, Sazid and Rashid were present. He
interrogated them and arrested them vide arrest memos Ex.
PW 12/A to Ex. PW 12/C respectively. He took their personal
search vide personal search memo Ex. PW 12/D to Ex. PW
12/F respectively. He also prepared Inspection Memo
regarding the visual injuries of accused persons, which are Ex.
PW 8/A, Ex. PW 8/B and Ex. PW 8/C. He recorded the
Page no. 14
disclosure statement of accused Akram Ex. PW 12/G and
other accused persons namely Rashid and Sazid did not give
any disclosure statement. He asked all the accused persons
regarding the weapon of offence, but they did not disclose
anything, so he could not recover the same. Thereafter, he
took them to LBS Hospital and after medical examination, they
were produced in the court and were sent to JC. He further
deposed that on 15.09.2012, he visited the house of
complainant and met injured Mohd. Jabbar and Mohd. Shahid
and thereafter, prepared site plan at the instance of Mohd.
Jabbar Ex. PW 8/D and thereafter, recorded statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C. of Mohd. Jabbar and Mohd. Shahid. He further
deposed that Mohd. Jabbar made another allegation in his
statement and disclosed that his money i.e. Rs. 80,000/- which
was kept in his car was also stolen on that day during the
incident. Witness further deposed that he tried to find out the
co-accused persons Hena and Sabnam, but they were not
found. He further deposed that on 27.09.2012, Mohd. Dilshad,
s/o Mohd. Nabi Rasool produced 12 photographs of injured
persons, which were reflecting the injuries of injured persons
Mohd. Nabi Rasool, Mohd. Jabbar and Shahid Ex. PW 4/B1 to
B12. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/A. He
further deposed that on 28.09.2012, the injured persons
produced two independent eye witness namely Prakash Dubey
and Pawan and he recorded their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
He also recorded the statement of injured Ms. Shahdab Hena
w/o Mohd. Jabbar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on
29.09.2012, accused Heena D/o Mohd. Akram came to the
police station Mandawali along with her anticipatory bail order.
Heena was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 14/A
and on 23.10.2012 Smt. Sabnam W/o Akram also came to the
police station Mandawali along with her anticipatory bail order
Page no. 15
and she was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 8/E.
He further deposed that during investigation, he also obtained
the opinion upon the MLC of all the injured persons and as per
the opinion, the injuries of all the three injured persons were
grievous in nature. He prepared the charge sheet and also
added Section 326/379/34 IPC and submitted the same in the
court. He identified accused Akram, Sazid, Rashid and
Sabnam before the Court and sated that he can also identify
accused Heena, who was exempted and her identity was not
disputed by the Ld. Defence Counsel.

14. PW9 ASI Pramod Kumar PIS No. 28891373 posted at Traffic
Circle Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi deposed that on 10.09.2012, he
was posted at PS Mandawali as Head Constable and on that
day, he was working as Duty Officer from 4:00 pm to 12:00
midnight and on that day at about 10.25 pm, an information of
a quarrel was received through operator at H.No. 428 E, Gali
No. 7 West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. He registered DD No. 53A in
this regard, which was marked to HC Arvind for necessary
action. He brought the DD Register pertaining to DD entry, true
copy of which is Ex. PW 9/A. He deposed that the date
mentioned on the true copy Ex. PW 9/A was wrongly
mentioned as 10.09.2013 and it should be 10.09.2012.

15. PW10 ASI Shiv Kumar PIS No. 28861367 posted at Supreme
Court Security, Delhi deposed that on 11.09.2012, he was
posted at PS Mandawali as HC and on that day, he was on
duty from 12 midnight to 8.00 am. He further deposed that on
that night at about 12:45 am, Ct. Arun Kumar handed over him
rukka. He made endorsement upon the same Ex. PW10/A and
thereafter, registered the FIR, computerized copy of FIR is Ex.
PW 10/B. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, it
was sent to SI Vijay through Ct. Arun Kumar for further
investigation. He brought the FIR register pertaining to the FIR.

Page no. 16

16. PW11 Ct. Arun Kumar PIS No. 28093087 posted at
CPCR/Command Room, Police Headquarter, ITO, Delhi
deposed that on 10.09.2012, he was posted at PS Mandawali
and at about 10:30 pm, one information was received by HC
Arvind regarding a quarrel. He along with HC Arvind
immediately reached Gali No. 7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi,
where they came to know that injured persons were already
taken to LBS Hospital by PCR vehicle and thereafter, they
reached at LBS Hospital, where they met injured persons
namely Nabi Rasool, Jabbar and Shahid. He further deposed
that HC Arvind recorded statement of Nabi Rasul and
thereafter prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered
through him. He further deposed that after registration of FIR,
he handed over the rukka along with copy of FIR to SI Vijay for
further investigation. He further deposed that thereafter he
along with SI Vijay reached LBS Hospital, where they came to
know that complainant was already sent to MAX Hospital and
thereafter, they reached at MAX Hospital, where complainant
was admitted in ICU. He further deposed that one copy of FIR
was handed over to complainant’s family. He further deposed
that his statement was recorded by the IO.

17. PW12 Constable Vinod PIS No. 28101469 posted at PS
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi deposed that on 11.09.2012, he was
posted at PS Mandawali at about 10/10:15 am, he joined
investigation with SI Vijay and reached at E Block, West Vinod
Nagar Gali No. 7. Delhi, where IO inquired from some public
persons with regard to the case. However, no eye witness of
the case met them and thereafter, they reached at H.No.
E-429, where they met accused persons namely Akram,
Rashid and Sazid. IO interrogated all of them and thereafter
arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. PW 12/A, Ex. PW 12/B
and Sazid Ex. PW 12/C respectively. He further deposed that
Page no. 17
accused were also personally searched vide memos Ex. PW
12/D, Ex. PW 12/E and Ex. PW12/F respectively. He also
signed the disclosure statement of accused Akram Ex. PW
12/G. He identified all three accused persons before the Court.
He further deposed that IO also inquired from them regarding
the wooden sticks used for committing the offence, but they did
not disclose anything and all the accused persons were
medically examined at LBS Hospital and produced at KKD
Courts and thereafter, they took them to Tihar Jail as it was
late hours and accused persons were handed over to the Jail
Authorities for keeping them in JC. He further deposed that
later on, his statement was recorded.

18. PW13 ASI Arvind Kumar PIS No. 28931511 posted at Traffic
Circle, Parliament House, New Delhi deposed that on
10.09.2012, he was posted at PS Mandawali as HC and on
that day, he was on night emergency duty from 8:00 pm to
8:00 am and at about 10:35 pm, he received DD No. 53A Ex.
PW 9/A regarding a quarrel and thereafter, he along with Ct.
Arun reached at E-428 Gali No’ 7 West Vinod Nagar, Delhi,
where upon the local inquiry, he came to know that injured
persons were already taken to LBS Hospital through PCR and
thereafter, they reached at LBS Hospital, where injured Nabi
Rasool along with his sons namely Mohd. Jabbar and Mohd.
Shahid were under treatment, who were examined. He
recorded statement of Nabi Rasool Ex.PW1/A and prepared
the rukka Ex.PW13/A and got the FIR registered through Ct.
Arun. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, the
investigation was marked to SI Vijay. He further deposed that
when Ct. Arun was already left for registration of the FIR,
meanwhile, he met accused Mohd. Rashid, who disclosed that
he was also injured in the same quarrel. However, there was
no visible injury upon his person, but he got his medical
Page no. 18
examination conducted. He identified accused Rashid before
the Court. He further deposed that meanwhile, SI Vijay called
him on his mobile phone and directed him to remain in the
hospital and after sometime, SI Vijay also came and examined
him and recorded his statement.

19. PW14 Woman Constable Manju PIS 28106436 Posted at PS
Mandawali deposed that on 29.09.2012, she was posted at PS
Mandawali as Woman Constable and on that day, her duty
hours were from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm and on that day, accused
Heena came to PS and IO SI Vijay Kumar conducted inquiry
from her and she was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.
PW14/A. He further deposed that IO recorded her statement.
She stated that she can identify accused Heena, who were
exempted and her identify was not disputed by Ld. Defence
Counsel.

20. PW15 ASI Om Vir Singh PIS No. 28822770 posted Special
Branch, South East Zone, Nehru Place, Delhi deposed that on
10.09.2012, he was posted at PCR East Zone and on that day,
he was on duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 ΑΜ and at about 10:15
PM, he received information regarding a quarrel at H.No.
E-428, Gali No. 7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. He along with his
staff reached the spot in PCR vehicle, where he found three
injured persons namely Nabi Rasool, Mohd. Jabbar and Mohd.
Shahid. He took them immediately to LBS Hospital for their
treatment. He further deposed that HC Arvind also reached the
hospital and he handed over those three injured persons to
him. He further deposed that later on his statement was
recorded by the IO.

21. PW16 Dr. Vikram Agrawal, Senior Resident (Ortho), LBS
Hospital Delhi deposed that he has been deputed to depose
on behalf of Dr. Arvind, who has already left their hospital 4-5
years ago. He can identify handwriting and signatures of Dr.
Page no. 19
Arvind as he worked with him at LBS Hospital. He further
deposed that Dr. Arvind gave opinion on MLC of Mohd. Shahid
son of Navi Rasool on 19.10.2012 Ex.PW16/A. He further
deposed that Dr. Arvind observed fracture upon shaft tibia
proximal III (Bone of leg) and relied upon the X-Ray report
Ex.PW16/B of injured Mohd. Shahid.

22. PW17 Dr. Shashwat Dayal, Asst. Medical Superintendent, Max
Hospital, Parparganj, Delhi brought the record of patient Mr.
Nabi Rasool Mohd., who was admitted on 11.09.2012 with the
alleged history of associate of human bite to lower lip, who was
admitted for reconstruction of lip and was examined by Dr.
Biraj N Panchaal. He further deposed that on 12.09.2012, lip of
injured was reconstructed with flaps and the patient was
discharged on the next day i.e. on 13.09.2012. Discharge
summary Ex.PW17/A of the patient was already on record
alongwith IPD and OPD bills, Ex.PW17/B (colly). He further
deposed that concerned Doctor Dr. Biraj N. Panchaal has
already left their services and there is no one in the hospital,
who could identify her handwriting and that he was deposing
on the basis of records only and whereabouts of Dr. Biraj N.
Panchaal were also not available in the hospital.

23. PW18 Dr. S.B. Jangpangi, CMO, LBS Hospital, Khichripur,
Delhi deposed that he has been working as Medical Officer in
Lal Bahadur Hospital since 2000 and he has come to depose
before this court on the directions of MS, LBS Hospital. He has
come to depose on behalf of Dr. Ranjeetesh as he has already
left the services of the hospital and his present, whereabout
are not known. He further deposed that he can only depose to
the extent that he can identify his signatures and handwriting
as he has seen Dr. Ranjeetesh writing and signing during the
course of the duties. He identified the signature of Dr.
Ranjeetesh on the MLC of patient Mohd. Shahid bearing No.
Page no. 20
9951/12 Ex. PW16/A. He identified the signature of Dr.
Ranjeetesh on the MLC of patient Nabi Rasool bearing No.
9952/12 Ex. PW8/B. He also identified the signature of Dr.
Ranjeetesh on the MLC of patient Mohd. Zabbar bearing No.
9953/12 Ex. PW8/A.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS under section
313 Cr.P.C.

23. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements under
Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure of accused Akram on
13.09.2023, accused Mohd. Sazid on 16.09.2023, accused
Sabnam and Mohd. Rashid on 18.09.2023 and accused
Heena on 27.09.2023 were recorded. Accused persons stated
that they were innocent and had not committed any offence.
Accused persons further stated that no quarrel had taken place
between them and injured persons and they had been falsely
implicated in this case. Accused persons did not prefer to lead
defence evidence.

24. On 20.10.2023, an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was
moved by accused Sazid, which was not opposed on behalf of
State and same was allowed. The matter was proceeded for
defence evidence. DW1, DW2 and DW3 were examined on
behalf of accused, cross-examined and discharged and
thereafter, matter was proceeded for final arguments. In the
meantime, an application was filed on behalf of complainant on
15.01.2024 for alteration of charge, which application was
dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2024 and matter was
proceeded for final arguments. However, on 01.05.2024, an
application was filed on behalf of accused for re-opening of
defence evidence, which was allowed vide order dated
26.07.2024 and accused persons were directed to lead further
defence evidence. DW4, DW5 and DW6 were examined by
accused persons in further defence evidence, they were cross-

Page no. 21
examined and discharged. Accused persons closed defence
evidence on 27.02.2025 and matter was posted for final
arguments.

25. DW1 Sh. Neeraj Kumar Jain S/o Late Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain,
R/o. A-6, North Vinod Nagar, Gali No.1, Ground Floor, Delhi
stated that he was running a ready-made garments shop at
Vinod Nagar, Mandawali and accused Sazid used to deliver
pants/trousers at his shop for the last 15 years and he used to
come to his shop every Monday. He further stated that on
10.09.2012, which was also Monday, accused Sazid came at
his shop to receive payment of pants/trousers. He alongwith
accused Sazid went to Dhansanchay Society in the evening at
about 8-9 pm on 10.09.2012 to find out details of opening of
account relating to borrowing of money or loans and since,
accused Sazid did not come to his shop on the next Monday,
he enquired and got to know that accused Sazid was in
custody in relation to some incident. He further deposed that
accused Sazid came to him about one and half months later
and informed him that accused Sazid had been falsely named
in an incident of a fight on the same day and time when he had
been with him viz. 10.09.2012. He stated that on 10.09.2012,
accused Sazid was with him between 8 and 9 pm and was not
involved in any incident during that time.

26. DW2 Sh. Sazid s/o Mohd. Yunus, R/o. E-429, Street No. 7,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092 stated that he has been
engaged in the work of salesmanship of ready-made trousers
and used to deliver pants/trousers at the shop of Neeraj Kumar
Jain for the last 15 years at Vinod Nagar, Mandawali and used
to go to his shop every Monday. He brought the record of
payments made to him by Neeraj Kumar Jain, which he
maintained in a diary. He has produced an original diary and
pointed to two pages which he wished to exhibit and the cover
Page no. 22
page of the diary is Ex. DW2/1 and the copy of the internal two
pages Ex. DW2/2 (OSR). He was also preparing class 12
CBSE examination through the Open Examination of which the
last date for filling the form was 11.09.2012. He could not
appear for the examination as he was wrongfully arrested in
the present matter and the said record is Ex. DW2/3 (colly- 42
pages). He further stated that on 10.09.2012, which was also
Monday, he went to the shop of Neeraj Kumar Jain to receive
payments for pants/trousers supplied by him. He alongwith
Neeraj Kumar Jain went to Dhansanchay Society in the
evening at about 8-9 pm on 10.09.2012 to find out details of
opening of account relating to borrowing of money or loans. He
went to his shop about one and half months later and informed
him that he had been falsely named in the present case for an
incident of a fight on the same day and time when he had in
fact been with Neeraj Kumar Jain viz. 10.09.2012. He stated
that on 10.09.2012, he was with Neeraj Kumar Jain between 8
and 9 pm and was not involved in the alleged incident, which is
the subject of the present trial. He was falsely implicated due to
previous enmity between the complainant and his real brother
namely Rashid and in fact he had good relations with the
complainants, who were his neighbours despite the fact that
there were previous FIRs against them upon the complainants
from their family.

27. DW3 Sh. Abhishek Pandey, Manager, Dhan Sanchay
Cooperative Bank, D-182, Main Road Mandawali,
Delhi-110092 stated that he was summoned to depose
regarding the video footage of the date of inauguration of the
above bank, he stated that there was no video footage
available of the said date i.e. on 28.07.2012. He further stated
that there was also no other video footage of the routine

Page no. 23
activities of the bank like distribution of blankets. He checked
the bank record and stated the facts on verification only.

28. DW4 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot
No. 224, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi stated that no record
pertaining to mobile number 9818509504 for the year 2012
was available as the record was maintained only for last two
years. DW4 was shown the itemized bills marked Mark X1
(colly), which could not be verified as the record of the bills
were maintained only for a period of 6 months.

29. DW5 HC Vikrant No. 1421/E, PS Mandawali, Delhi stated that
he was posted at PS Mandawali since April, 2024 and on that
day, he brought record in respect of FIR no. 433/2014 U/s
323/341/34 IPC PS Mandawali, copy of the said FIR is Ex.
DW5/A (running into 4 pages including index) (OSR). He
further stated that remaining summoned record i.e. Kalandara
vide DD No. 92-B dated 04.08.2012 had already been weed
out vide order No. 515-544/HAR/East Distt. dated 27.01.2020
issued by competent authority Ex. DW5/B (running into two
pages). He further stated that record of MLC No. 9982/2012 of
LBS Hospital was not available in the record of the police
station.

30. DW6 Mohd. Rashid S/o Mohd. Yunus, R/o. H.No. 431, Gali
No.7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92 stated that he is accused in
the present matter. He further deposed that on 10.09.2012 at
about 9.00 pm, Nabi Rasool son of Musafir Ahmad, Jabbar,
Shahid, Dilshad, Smt. Nemu Nisha and Sawalia wife of Jabbar,
Naimuddin and his wife, entered his house and attacked on
him. He further stated that Jabbar was carrying one iron rod,
which he tried to hit on his head. However, he stopped the
blow from his left hand. He further stated that other family
members mentioned above attacked on him, when Jabbar tried
to hit on his head from an iron rod. He stopped the blow from
Page no. 24
his right hand to save himself. He received injuries on his right
hand and the other family members of Jabbar attacked on him
and they inflicted injuries on his body. He further stated that his
wife raised alarm to save him and on listening alarm, pubic
persons came to the first floor. He further stated that public
persons and his brother-in-law Naim intervened to help him
and thereafter, his brother Akram came forward to save him.
However, Jabbar and his family members continued to attack
upon them. He managed to call at 100 number from his mobile
number no. 9810578731 and after sometime PCR came at the
spot but police officers left the spot without intervening in the
matter. He further stated that when Jabbar and his family were
leaving the spot, Sahid snatched gold chain of his wife from
her neck. He further stated that Jabbar and his family members
fell down from the stairs and received injuries and they lodged
false case against him and his family members. He was
treated in the hospital for about 39 days. Police officers did not
take his complaint. He went to LBS Hospital, where MLC
bearing no. 9962 was prepared and on the next day, his
brother was examined at LBS Hospital, where his MLC no.
9982 was prepared. He further stated that police officer did not
conduct fair investigation and they were sent to jail. He further
stated that SHO Insp. Mahesh Tholia had beaten him in the
police station and when he was released on bail, Jabbar and
his family members threatened him.

31. After conclusion of evidence, both the parties were heard at
length.

32. Ld. APP has argued that prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that on 10.09.2012, at about 9 PM, accused
persons Md. Akram, Sazid, Rashid, Sabnam and Heena in
furtherance of common intention caused grievous injuries to
Nabi Rasool on his head with iron rods with such intention and
Page no. 25
knowledge and under such circumstances that, if, by that act,
Nabi Rasool Mohd. had died, accused persons would have
been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is
further submitted by Ld. APP that prosecution witnesses have
also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons
while acting in furtherance of common intentional also caused
grievous injuries to Mohd. Shahid and Mohd. Zabbar. MLCs of
the injured persons duly proved by the prosecution witnesses
shows that the nature of injuries suffered by the injured
persons namely Nabi Rasool, Shahid and Zabbar are grievous
in nature and accused Rashid gave teeth bite to Nabi Rasool
with such force on his lower lip that it got severed off and
caused permanent disfiguration of the face of Nabi Rasool. It is
further submitted that the prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4
have also proved that accused Rashid stole Rs.80,000/- cash
belonging to Zabbar from his car during the incident on
10.09.2012.

33. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have argued that
accused persons have been falsely implicated by the injured
persons out of previous enmity as accused persons had
lodged a complaint bearing DD No. 92-B dated 04.08.2012
against Nabi Rasool and his family members. It is further
submitted that as a matter of fact Nabi Rasool and his family
members entered the house of Rashid and attacked him with
iron rod on 10.09.2012 and accused Rashid had also lodged
the FIR no. 433 of 2014 PS Mandawali in this regard. She has
argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
full of material contradictions and the only public witness PW5
examined by the prosecution has not supported the
prosecution version. She has further argued that testimony of
PW1 is completely silent with regard to use of knife by the
accused persons and no stab injury is mentioned in the MLCs
Page no. 26
of the injured. She has further argued that the MLCs of the
injured has not been duly proved by the prosecution and the
photographs Ex. PW4/B-1 to B-12 are not admissible in
evidence. She has further argued that MLCs of none of the
injured persons shows any injury, damage or irritation in the
eyes of any of the injured due to alleged throwing of chili
powder by accused Heena and Sabanam, which creates
reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the version of the
prosecution story. It has been further argued on behalf of
accused persons that testimony of DW1 and DW2 has shown
that accused Sazid was not present at the alleged spot and he
has been falsely implicated in the present case.

34. Prosecution has relied upon the Ex.PW16/A, MLC No-9951/12,
CR-No-139294/12 of Mohd. Shahid S/o Nabi Rasool R/o
E-428, Street No 7, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, 36 years, where
doctor had mentioned alleged history of Assault, L/E LW
1X1Cm and traumatic swelling (Rt.) Leg just below knee. At
point A1 in MLC Ex.PW16/A, Ortho opinion dated 19.10.2012
is recorded, wherein Doctor referred to X-ray of the injured
(Ex.PW16/B) and observed fracture upon shaft tibia proximal
III (Bone of leg) and further opined as to nature of injury as
grievous. PW16 deposed that Dr. Arvind who gave the ortho
opinion dated 19.10.2012 has left the services of LBS Hospital.
He identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Arvind and
stated in his cross-examination that he has worked with Dr.
Arvind and as such he is acquainted with his handwriting.
PW18 identified the signature of Dr. Ranjeetesh at point B on
Ex.PW16/A, who examined the injured and prepared the MLC
Ex.PW16/A. PW18 deposed that he can identify the signature
and handwriting of Dr. Ranjeetesh. Ld. Counsel for accused
persons chose not to cross-examine PW18.

Page no. 27

35. The MLC No-9952/12, CR No-139295 of Mr. Nabi Rasool
Mohd. S/o Musafir Ahmed Aged 55 years R/o. E-428 Gali No-7
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, which is Mark PW8/B (mentioned as
Ex.PW8/B in the testimony of PW18), wherein doctor had
mentioned alleged history of Assault L/E avulsed lower lip 4×2
cm, LW (Rt) side frontal forehead 1x2cm, LW (Rt) side back of
head (occipital), abrasion over chest 1×2 cm, (front), Swelling
(T) 2x2cm, abrasion (Lt) knee. PW18 has identified the
signature of examining doctor on Mark PW8/B. PW18 deposed
that he can identify the signature and handwriting of Dr.
Ranjeetesh. Ld. Counsel for accused persons chose not to
cross-examine PW18. Mark PW8A also mentions that Nabi
Rasool was referred to higher centre and therefore opinion as
to nature of injury should be obtained from higher
centre.PW17/A is the discharge summary of Nabi Rasool from
Max Super Speciality Hospital and Ex.PW17/B are the OPD
bills. Ex.PW17/A shows that Nabi Rasool underwent Lip
reconstruction with flaps on 12/09/2012 and it also records that
patient was admitted for reconstruction with the alleged history
of associate with human bite to lower lip. PW17 testified on the
basis of hospital records as to the authenticity of Ex. PW17/A
and Ex. PW17/B. Ex.PW17/A also records that Nabi Rasool
had complained of slight pain in left side of the chest. PW6
deposed that Nabi Rasool was admitted to Apex Citi Hospital
on 13.09.2012 with the complaint of giddiness and nausea.
PW6 further deposed that he gave medical opinion Ex. PW6/A
dated 26.11.2012 and as per his opinion, nature of injury
suffered by Nabi Rasool was grievous in nature as he suffered
facial disfigurement.

36. The MLC No-9953/12 CR NO-139295/12 of Md. Zabbar S/o
Nabi Rasool Aged 30 years is Mark PW8/A (mentioned as
Ex.PW8/A in the testimony of PW18), wherein doctor had
Page no. 28
mentioned alleged history of Assault L/E tendon swelling
(traumatic) 2×2 cm, abrasion 0.5×0.5 cm over front of knee (Lt),
tender (+) (Lt) thigh, abrasion upper lip. Victims namely Mr.
Nabi Rasool, Md. Zabbar and Md. Shahid were found admitted
in the hospital. On the treatment slip of injured Mohd. Shahid,
(Rt) Leg Fracture was written and on the treatment slip of
Mohd. Jabbar, (Lt) Leg Fracture was written. PW18 identified
the signature of Dr. Ranjeetesh at point A on Mark PW8/A,
who examined the injured and prepared the MLC Mark PW8/A.
PW18 deposed that he can identify the signature and
handwriting of Dr. Ranjeetesh. Ld. Counsel for accused
persons chose not to cross-examine PW18. Mark PW8/A
further record the ortho opinion given by Doctor Arvind, who
had opined the nature of injury of injured Zabbar as grievous,
however prosecution has not examined any witness to identify
the signatures of Dr. Arvind on Mark PW8/A.

37. Ld. Counsel for Accused persons have vehemently argued that
neither PW16 nor PW18 are competent witnesses to prove the
MLCs of injured persons. She has argued that PW16, PW18
and PW17 are not competent witnesses to prove the MLCs of
the injured witnesses as none of them had examined the
injured persons nor gave the medical opinion as to the nature
of injuries. She has further argued that testimony of PW6 is
also not reliable as Nabi Rasool was neither referred there by
the Govt. Hospital nor his alleged lip reconstruction surgery
was performed at Apex Citi Hospital.

38. The contention of the Ld. counsel for the appellant that PW16,
PW18 and PW17 are not competent witnesses to prove the
MLCs of the injured witnesses as none of them had examined
the injured persons nor gave the medical opinion as to the
nature of injuries has no force as these witnesses have
identified the signatures and handwritings of the doctor, who
Page no. 29
examined the injured persons. PW18 has categorically stated
that they identify the signatures and handwriting of doctor who
examined the injured witnesses and prepared Ex.PW16/A,
Mark PW8/A and Mark PW8/B. PW16 has deposed that he
identifies the handwriting and signature of Dr. Arvind, who
gave the opinion as to nature of injury in Ex.PW16/A. PW17
have proved from the record Ex.PW17A & Ex. PW17B which
shows that injured Nabi Rasool had undergone lip resurrection
surgery at Max Super Speciality Hospital. PW16 to 17 have
also deposed that whereabouts of the doctors, who examined
the injured persons and performed the lip resurrection surgery
on Nabi Rasool were not available in the hospital records.
PW16 and PW17 have proved Ex.PW16/A, PW16/B, Mark
PW8/A and Mark PW8/B. Further Defence has chosen not to
cross-examine PW18, who identified the signatures of Dr.
Ranjeetesh, who examined the injured persons and prepared
MLC. Ex.PW16/A, Mark PW8/A and Mark PW8/B. The
contention of the Ld. Defence counsel that in the absence of
examination of Dr. Ranjeetesh, who has examined the injured
persons and prepared the MLC, the MLC cannot be admitted
in evidence is fallacious and has no force in it. PW16 has
identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Arvind on
PW16/A and PW18 has identified the signatures of Dr.
Ranjeetesh on the Ex.PW16/A, Mark PW8/A and Mark PW8/B
and have stated that Dr. Arvind and Dr. Rajneetesh have left
the hospital and their whereabouts were not known. PW17 has
proved Ex.PW17, discharge summary of Nabi Rasool from the
hospital records. Further testimony of PW6, who treated Nabi
Rasool at Apex Citi Hospital corroborates Ex.PW17/A and
Mark PW8/B and proves the nature of injuries suffered by Nabi
Rasool to be grievous in nature.

Page no. 30

39. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Kamlesh Vs. State,
2023/DHC/000051 has observed as under:

’14.The MLC is an authenticated record of
injuries which is prepared in regular course of
business by the doctor and can be relied upon by
the Courts, even when the doctor who prepared
the MLC is not examined in the Court and record
is proved by any of the other doctor. It cannot be
expected from the hospital to keep track of the
doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither the
doctor is expected to keep the hospital informed
about his /her whereabouts. Merely because the
doctor who prepared the MLC is not personally
examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved.
Proving of MLC by a colleague doctor who
identifies the handwriting and signatures of the
doctor who examined the patient or by an
administrative staff of the hospital who identifies
the signatures of the doctor is sufficient and good
proof and MLC cannot be doubted.

15. In the instant case, it is not the case of the
appellant that there is tampering with the MLC
and no bias has been alleged against the
hospital authority or the IO by the appellant.

Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court was fully justified
on relying upon the MLC Ex. PW 7/A.’

40. The prosecution has thus duly proved the MLCs Ex.PW16/A,
Mark PW8/A and Mark PW8/B of injured Mohd. Shahid, Mohd.
Zabbar and Nabi Rasool respectively. As per opinion of Dr.
Arvind on MLC Ex.PW16/A, the nature of injury suffered by
injured Mohd. Shahid is grievous in nature. Further as proved
from Mark PW8/B, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW16/A,
injured Nabi Rasool’s lower lip was avulsed and he underwent
lip reconstruction surgery. PW6 who treated injured Nabi
Rasool at Apex Citi Hospital has deposed that Nabi Rasool
suffered permanent disfiguration of face. His testimony is
supported by Mark PW8/B, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B and
Ex.PW16/A. The prosecution has though led no evidence to
prove the handwriting and signature of doctor, who gave the
Page no. 31
opinion on the MLC Mark PW8/A of injured Zabbar. Testimony
of PW18 who identified the signatures of the doctor, who
prepared MLC Mark PW8/A is completely silent in this regard.

24. PW1, PW2 & PW3 are the injured witnesses. PW1 Nabi
Rasool deposed that on 10.09.2012, he was present at his
house and at about 9 pm, he heard noises coming from
outside the house, on this, he came to the balcony of his
house and saw that accused Rashid, Akram, Sazid, Sabnam
and Heena were fighting with his son Jabbar and beating him.
He identified the accused persons in the court. He further
deposed that he immediately reached the lane outside main
door of his house and tried to intervene but none of the
accused pay any heed and caught him and started beatings
him also. He further deposed that accused Sabnam and
Heena threw chilli powder in his and his son Jabbar’s eyes. He
further deposed that in the meantime, his other son Shahid
also reached there and tried to intervene but all the accused
persons started beatings him also. He further deposed that
accused Sazid and Rashid were armed with iron rods and they
hit him and his son Jabbar’s head with it and they also hit with
the iron rod on the legs of his son Shahid. He further deposed
that they all were crying but despite that all the accused
persons continued to give beatings to them and accused
Rashid gave teeth bite on his lip. He further deposed that all
the accused persons had beaten and injured them.

41. PW2 Mohd. Shahid on 10.09.2012, deposed that he was
present at his office situated in his house and at about 9.30
pm, he heard noise coming from outside the house and on this,
he came out of his house and saw that accused Rashid,
Akram, Sazid, Sabnam and Heena were fighting and beating
his brother Jabbar and his father with iron rods and knives. He
identified accused persons before the Court. He further
Page no. 32
deposed that he rushed to intervene. He further deposed that
accused persons threw chilli powder in his eyes and accused
Akram hit him with iron rods on his right leg as a result of which
he fell down. He further deposed that wife of Akram and his
daughter caught him and accused Akram said exhorting the
other accused persons “sale ye apne aap ko bahut bante hein,
in salo ko aaj jaan se khatam karna hai”. He further deposed
that accused Akram assaulted them with iron rod. He deposed
that accused Rashid and Sazid attacked his father with iron rod
and knife on his head and chest and accused Rashid also
gave teeth bite on the lip of his father.

42. PW3 Mohd. Zabbar deposed that on 10.09.2012 between 9 to
10 pm, he was returning from his office in his Hyundai Accent
car and as soon as he parked his car near his house, accused
Rashid came from behind holding a knife in his hand and
grabbed his collar and dragged him out of his car and attacked
him with knife. He further deposed that he tried to save himself
but accused Rashid caused knife injury on back side of his
right thigh and in the meantime, accused Akram, his wife
Sabnam and daughter Heena also came there. He identified all
the accused persons in the Court. He further deposed that all
these three put red chilli powder in his eyes and on his body
due to which he felt great pain and thereafter, accused Akram
hit on his left leg with iron rod due to which he fell down. He
further deposed that he also saw that accused Rashid took out
Rs. 80,000/- cash from his car which he withdrew from the
bank for the purpose of salary of his workers. He further
deposed that his father Sh. Nabi Rasool came to rescue him
but accused Sabnam and Heena put red chilli powder in his
eyes and thereafter, his brother Shahid also came there to
save him but accused persons also put red chilli powder in his
eyes and accused Akram hit iron rod on his right leg below the
Page no. 33
knee. He further deposed that accused Sabnam and Heena
caught hands of his father and accused Akram, Rashid and
Sazid, who had also come there jointly attacked his father. He
also identified accused Sazid in the Court. He further deposed
that accused Akram hit iron rod on his father head from behind
and accused Rashid was having sharp edged weapon and
accused Sazid was having iron rod and they also attacked his
father from the front and caused injuries. He further deposed
that accused Rashid bit on the lower lip of his father so
forcefully and so long that the lip was cut off and thereafter, his
wife called at 100 number and PCR came there, who took
them to LBS hospital for treatment, where their MLCS were
prepared.

43. PW5 Sh. Prakash Dubey S/o Late Sh. Babban Dubey, aged
about 50 years, R/o 266, Asharam Gali, Mandawali, Delhi
deposed that the incident had occurred on 10.09.2012. He
deposed that on that day, he parked his car and was going to
his house, when he reached near the house of Nabi Rasool at
about 9.30 pm, he saw that Rashid, Sazid and Akram were
beating Nabi Rasool and Shahid. He had not seen any other
persons beating Nabi Rasool and Shahid. He further deposed
that PCR van came there and he left the spot when police
came. PW5 was cross-examined by Ld. APP as he resiled
from his earlier statement. He admitted that when he reached
in front of H. No. E-428 near Gali No.7, West Vinod Nagar at
about 9 pm, he saw Akram, Sazid and Rashid alongwith their
women family members were beating Nabi Rasool and his
family members and he had seen Akram beating Shahid with
an iron rod. Witness admitted that Nabi Rasool and his family
members had sustained injuries. He also admitted that his
statement was recorded by the police.

Page no. 34

44. PW7 Smt. Shadab Heena W/o Sh. Mohd. Zabbar heard noises
from outside and when she came to her balcony, she saw that
their neighbours namely Rashid, Sazid, Akram, who were
brothers, wife of Akram namely Sabnam and daughter of
Akram namely Heena were beating her husband, Mohd.
Zabbar. She further deposed that on seeing the same when
she raised alarm, her father-in-law Navi Rasool and brother-in-
law (Jeth) Mohd. Shahid also came out and went down near
her husband to save him but accused persons also caught her
father-in-law and Jeth and started beating them. She further
deposed that when she tried to intervene, Sabnam pushed her
down but she did not sustain any visible injury. She further
deposed that at that time, Rashid was armed with knife and
Sazid and Akram were having iron rods. She further deposed
that Rashid gave teeth bite on the lip of her father-in-law and
also hit him with knife and her husband and Jeth were beaten
by iron rods by Sazid and Akram. She further deposed that at
that time, when her father-in-law and Jeth came to save her
husband, Sabnam and Heena threw chili powder in their eyes.

45. All the injured witnesses have deposed that accused Heena
and Sabnam threw chili powder in their eyes, however the
MLCs of all the injured persons are completely silent with
regard to any injury or complaint of irritation/burning sensation
in the eyes of any of the injured persons. PW5, who is public
witness deposed that he only saw Rashid, Sazid and Akram
beating Nabi Rasool and Shahid although during his cross-
examination by Ld. APP, he stated that Rashid, Sazid and
Akram alongwith their women family members were beating
Nabi Rasool and his family members and he had seen Akram
beating Shahid with an iron rod. PW5 has also not referred to
any chili powder being thrown in the eyes of any of the injured
persons. PW7 is the wife of injured Mohd. Zabbar and deposed
Page no. 35
that she arrived at the spot and tried to intervene, however
accused Sabnam pushed her, but she did not sustain any
visible injury. Testimony of PW1 and PW2 are completely silent
as to the presence of PW7 on the spot. The injured witness,
PW3, who is the husband of PW7 also did not depose
regarding the presence of PW7 on the spot or that she was
pushed by Sabnam. PW3 merely deposed that PW7 dialled
100 number.

46. PW2, Mohd. Shahid in his testimony has deposed that Heena
and Sabnam caught hold of him, however the testimony of
PW1 and PW3, who are the other injured witnesses are
completely silent in this regard. On the other hand, PW3 in his
testimony has deposed that accused Heena and Sabnam
caught hold of hands of his father, Nabi Rasool during the
incident. The testimonies of Prosecution witnesses with regard
to role of accused Sabnam and Heena are full of contradictions
and the MLCs of injured persons makes no mention of any
irritation/burning sensation or injury in the eyes of injured
persons as a consequence of alleged throwing of chili powder
by accused Sabnam and accused Heena. Prosecution has
failed to prove the role of the accused Heena and Sabnam
beyond reasonable doubt. No role has been attributed to
accused Heena and Sabnam of hitting any of the injured with
iron rod/stick by any of the prosecution witnesses. The version
of PW7 that she was pushed by accused Sabnam is not
supported by the other prosecution witnesses nor any MLC of
PW7 has been placed on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. Vs The
State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 221 regarding the culpability
of accused under section 34 IPC observed as under:

53. On the other hand, under Section 34, IPC, a
mere agreement, although it might be a sufficient
proof of the common intention, would be wholly
Page no. 36
insufficient to sustain a conviction with the
application of Section 34, IPC, unless some
criminal act is done in furtherance of the said
common intention and the accused himself has in
some way or the other participated in the
commission of the said act.

54. The offence itself would be complete even
though the act abetted is not committed; or, even
if the act is committed, the abettor himself has
not participated in it. Thus, actual participation in
the commission of the offence, which is a
condition precedent of Section 34 and is its main
feature, again distinguishes it from the offence of
abetment.

55. Section 34, IPC, compendiously summarises
the liability imposed under English Law on what
are therein called as principal in the first degree
and principal in the second degree and
assimilates the principles underlying both by
compressing them in one section and treating
them as what have been called accessories at
the fact as opposed to what are termed as
accessories before the fact and accessories after
the fact.

47. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2 and
PW3 are coherent and reliable to the extent of presence of
accused Heena and Sabnam at the place of incident, however
their testimonies with regard to them being a confederate of
the assailants or played any active role, are full of
contradictions and is not supported by the medical evidence.

48. PW1, PW2 & PW3 have deposed that accused Rashid bit on
the lower lip of Nabi Rasool so forcefully and so long that the
lip was cut off. The MLC Mark PW8/B, Discharge summary
Ex.PW17/A and medical bills Ex.PW17/B and the testimony of
PW6 has proved beyond reasonable doubt that injured Nabi
Rasool suffered from avulsed lower lip and has undergone lip
reconstruction surgery. The testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW3
are coherent, reliable and consistent with regard to the active
Page no. 37
role played by the accused Rashid in inflicting grievous injuries
to Nabi Rasool. PW1 has also deposed that accused Rashid
alongwith Sazid hit him and his son on head with iron rod and
they also hit his son Shahid on his leg. PW2, Shahid has
deposed that accused Akram hit him with iron rod, because of
which he fell on the ground. He further deposed that accused
Rashid and Sazid hit his father Nabi Rasool with iron rod and
knife on his head and chest. PW3, Mohd Zabbar has deposed
that accused Akram hit him with iron rod and he fell down as a
consequence. He has also deposed that as soon as he parked
his car accused Akram came from behind and grabbed his
collar, dragged him out of his car and attacked him with knife
on back side of his right thigh. PW3 further deposed that
accused Akram hit his father Nabi Rasool on his head from
behind and accused Rashid, who was having a sharp edged
weapon and accused Sazid who was having iron rod in his
head attacked Nabi Rasool from the front and caused injuries
to him. MLCs of none of the injured persons shows any stab
wound injury and the version of PW2 & PW3 that PW1 was
attacked with knife is further not corroborated by PW1 himself.
PW1 in his testimony has not referred to any injury being
caused to him by knife or accused persons carrying any knife
at the time of incident, however their testimonies with regard to
injuries being caused to them by the accused persons with iron
rods are consistent, coherent and reliable and is further
corroborated by the medical evidence.

49. Ld. Defence Counsel has cross-examined injured witnesses
PW1, PW2 and PW3 at length. These witnesses denied the
suggestion of the defence counsel that they entered alongwith
some ladies, the house of accused Rashid and attacked him
on his head with iron rod or that they snatched the gold chain
from neck of his wife or that they sustained injuries while
Page no. 38
fleeing from house of Rashid. She has also argued that injured
witnesses are interested witnesses and have falsely implicated
the accused persons and that accused Mohd. Rashid has also
lodged FIR No. 433/2014, Ex. DW-5/A against the injured
persons and their family members in respect of the incident
dated 10.09.2012. It is pertinent to observed that all the
accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.
and their statements were recorded, however none of the
accused including accused Rashid had deposed that injured
persons alongwith their family members entered the house of
Rashid and attacked him. Further no MLCs of the accused
persons mentioned in the FIR, Ex. DW-5/A have been
produced on record in defence evidence. DW5 in his cross-
examination further stated on the basis of record that
cancellation report has already been filed in the FIR no.
433/2014. It is a settled law that ocular evidence of the victim
or the injured is considered the best evidence. In the case titled
as “State of U.P. v. Naresh“, (2011) 4 SCC 324, Hon’ble
Supreme Court had observed: –

“27. The evidence of an injured witness must be
given due weightage being a stamped witness,
thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His
statement is generally considered to be very
reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the
actual assailant in order to falsely implicate
someone else. The testimony of an injured
witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he
has sustained injuries at the time and place of
occurrence and this lends support to his
testimony that he was present during the
occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. The
witness would not like or want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a
third person falsely for the commission of the
offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured
witness should be relied upon unless there are
grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the
Page no. 39
basis of major contradictions and discrepancies
therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2009) 9 SCC 719: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107],
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC
673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed
v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1262]).”

50. 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as under:

“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 taken into consideration and
discrepancies which normally creep due to loss
of memory with passage of time should be
discarded.

27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the
eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are
whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is
Page no. 40
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, the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses has to be examined on its own merits,
where the Accused raise a definite plea or put
forward a positive case which is inconsistent with
that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or
case and the probabilities in respect of it will also
have to be taken into account while assessing
the value of the prosecution evidence.”

51. PW1, PW2 & PW3 have given a detailed, reliable and truthful
account of the incident. They have specifically deposed that
the accused persons Akram, Sazid and Rashid hit them with
iron rods and accused Rashid bit on the lower lip of Nabi
Rasool so forcefully and so long that the lip was cut off. Their
testimonies are corroborated by the medical evidence. They
have identified accused Akram, Sazid and Rashid as the
person who hit them with iron rod and accused Rashid as the
person who had bitten the lower lip of injured Nabi Rasool with
such force that his lower lip was avulsed. PW1, PW2 & PW3
were subjected to a detailed cross examination by Learned
defence counsel. However, apart from few minor
contradictions, there testimonies are consistent and coherent
and no major contradiction has appeared in their testimonies
so as to discard or disbelieve the same. The defence had not
been able to impeach the veracity of the statement of PW-1,
PW-2 & PW3 or to shake his credibility. PW5, who is a public

Page no. 41
witness has also supported the case of the prosecution with
regard to beating of injured persons by accused Akram, Sazid
and Rashid. It is also pertinent to observe that in so far as
minor discrepancies in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW3
are concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govardhan &
Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 47, while
discussing the effect of minor discrepancies in the ocular
account given by the witnesses observed as under:

51. As we proceed to examine this crucial
aspect, it may be apposite to keep in mind
certain observations made by this Court relating
to discrepancies in the account of eye witnesses.

In Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State
of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 it was observed
as follows:

“9. Be it noted that the High Court is within
its jurisdiction being the first appellate court to
reappraise the evidence, but the discrepancies
found in the ocular account of two witnesses
unless they are so vital, cannot affect the
credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There
are bound to be some discrepancies between the
narrations of different witnesses when they speak
on details, and unless the contradictions are of a
material dimension, the same should not be used
to jettison the evidence in its entirety.
Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with
mathematical niceties cannot be expected in
criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may
be, but variations by reason therefore should not
render the evidence of eyewitnesses
unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to
obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. In
this context, reference may be made to the
decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. M.K.
Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri)
105].

In para 10 of the Report, this Court observed :

(SCC pp. 514-15)
’10. 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
Page no. 42
undoubtedly necessary for the court to
scrutinise 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. Minor discrepancies on
trivial matters not touching the core of the
case, hypertechnical 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. 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. Even honest
and truthful witnesses may differ in some
details unrelated to the main incident
because power of observation, retention
and reproduction differ with individuals.’

52. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that no iron rod has been
recovered by the police in the present case and as such the
testimonies of the PW1, PW2 and PW3 that accused persons
attacked them with iron rod are not reliable. The contention of
the Ld. Defence Counsel is devoid of merit as it is a settled rule
of law that non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal to
the case of the prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
‘Mekala Sivaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh‘ [2022] 6 SCR
989, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that when there is
Page no. 43
ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence,
mere non recovery of weapon from the appellant would not
materially affect the case of prosecution.

53. Ld. Defence Counsel has also argued that DW1 and DW2
have proved that accused Sazid was not present at the alleged
spot at the time of commission of crime. DW1 has deposed
that accused Sazid alongwith him went to Dhansanchay
Society in the evening at about 8-9 PM on 10.09.2012 to find
out details of opening of account relating to borrowing of
money or loans. During his cross-examination DW1 stated that
he cannot produce any document to show business
transaction between him and accused Sazid. DW2 accused
Sazid depot that on 10.09.2012, he alongwith DW1 went to
Dhansanchay Society in the evening at about 8-9 PM. There is
no documentary evidence produced by the defence to show
that accused Sazid alongwith DW1 had gone to Dhansanchay
Society on 10.09.2012 at about 8-9 PM. Further no witness
has been examined from the said society, who have deposed
that accused Sazid came to its office. DW3 had deposed that
no video footage of the said date is available. Further the time
of incident as per prosecution is about 9PM and PW3 in his
testimony has deposed that accused Sazid had arrived later
and joined the accused persons. The relevant portion of the
testimony is as under:

‘…Accused Sabnam and Heena caught hold of
hands of my father and accused Akram, Rashid
and Sazid, who also came there jointly attacked my
father.’

54. PW5, who is independent witness has also deposed that
accused Sazid alongwith accused Akram and Rashid were
beating Nabi Rasool and Shahid. Prosecution witness have
proved beyond reasonable doubt the presence of accused
Page no. 44
Sazid on the scene of crime and his role in the commission of
offence. Charges have also been framed against the accused
Rashid under section 379 IPC for stealing 80,000/- from the
car of injured Zabbar. The testimony of PW1 & PW2 are
completely silent in this regard. None of the other injured
witnesses have deposed with regard to alleged theft by
accused Rashid. Injured Zabbar in his statement dated
15.09.2012 for the first time alleged that amount of Rs.
80,000/- withdrawn by him was stolen by Rashid. The
statement of complainant Nabi Rasool father of Zabbar
recorded on 10.09.2012 is completely silent in this regard.
Further, there is a contradiction with regard the persons, who
had stolen the amount of Rs. 80,000/- as PW7 during her
cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel on 19.07.2018
has stated that after her husband was discharged from the
hospital, he told her that three accused persons had taken out
money from his car. Injured Zabbar has also not produced any
record to show that he used to pay any salary to his
employees/workers. The allegations of theft against accused
Rashid are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

55. Now coming to the issue whether accused Rashid, Sazid and
Akram are guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, it has to be seen, whether the accused
persons attacked the injured Nabi Rasool, Zabbar and Shahid
with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that, if by that act injured persons had died, they
would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the
distinction between attempt to commit culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and voluntarily causing hurt in the
judgment dated 14.03.2022 passed in Bali Vs. State (Crl.
Appeal 36/2021) observed as under:

Page no. 45

21. It is noted that the Supreme Court, in Bishan
Singh and Another v. State reported as (2007) 13
SCC 65, while holding the conviction of the
accused under Section 308 IPC unsustainable,
had held as follows:

“11. Before an accused can be held to be
guilty under Section 308
IPC, it was necessary to arrive at a finding
that the ingredients thereof, namely,
requisite intention or knowledge was
existing. There cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that such an intention or
knowledge on the part of the accused to
cause culpable homicide is required to be
proved. Six persons allegedly accosted the
injured. They had previous enmity.
Although overt act had been attributed
against each of the accused who were
having lathis, only seven injuries had been
caused and out of them only one was
grievous, being a fracture on the arm,
which was not on the vital part of the body.

12. The accused, therefore, in our opinion,
could not be said to have committed
any offence under Section 308 IPC. The
same would fall under Sections 323 and
325 thereof.”

(emphasis added)

22. In Roop Chand v. State (NCT) of Delhi
reported as MANU/SC/0969/2020, while
modifying the conviction of the appellant from
one under Section 308 IPC to that under Section
324 IPC, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

“12. Accepting true what the injured has
deposed, we find it difficult to hold that the
Appellant had any intention or knowledge
to inflict such injury which could cause the
victim’s death within the meaning of
culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. The Appellant had in a fit of rage
inflicted singular injury on the left temple of
the injured and made no attempt to repeat
such attack or strike a second blow, which
indicates that he did not intend to cause
any fatal injury. Similarly, given the facts of
this case, it would be far-fetched to hold
that the Appellant knew that his actions

Page no. 46
were likely to cause the death of the
injured.

13. We are, thus, of the opinion that the
evidence on record falls short of
establishing the requisite ingredients of
Section 308 of Indian Penal Code, though
the Appellant is undoubtedly guilty of
voluntarily causing hurt with a sharp-edged
weapon within the meaning of Section 324
of Indian Penal Code.”

23. Based on a reading of judicial dicta on the
issues involved in the present case, suffice it to
note that every incident of stabbing with a
knife/sharp object, if proved, does not ipso facto
lead to a conclusion that death of the injured was
likely by the act of the accused. In fact, the
nature of the actual harm/injury, if any, resulting
from the act is inconsequential under Section 308
IPC. What is required to be proved is the
intention or knowledge on the part of the accused
to cause the act under such circumstances that if
death was caused, the act would be adjudged as
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Needless to add, the said intention or knowledge
has to be discerned from the facts and
circumstances of each case, including the nature
of injuries suffered by the victim(s) and the kind
of weapon(s) used.

56. Prosecution witnesses have proved beyond reasonable doubt
that accused persons Rashid, Sazid and Akram attacked the
injured persons with iron rod and caused grievous injuries to
injured persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Chand
v. State (NCT) of Delhi, while discussing the distinction
between hurt and attempt to culpable homicide not amounting
to murder, has held that distinction between attempt to commit
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and voluntarily
causing hurt with a sharpedged weapon, is subtle and
nuanced. Under the former (Section 308), injuries must be
such as are likely to cause death, but in the latter (Section 324)
the injuries may or may not endanger one’s life. In the present
case, MLCs Mark PW8/A, Mark PW8/B and Ex.PW16/A
Page no. 47
shows presence of multiple injuries on the body of injured
persons, however only one injury each on the body of the
injured Nabi Rasool, Zabbar and Shahid have been opined to
be grievous in nature. None of the prosecution witnesses PW6,
PW16, PW17 & PW18 have deposed that the injuries caused
to the injured persons are sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death or were likely to cause death. Now it has
to be seen from the evidence led by the prosecution, whether
the injuries caused to injured persons were inflicted by the
accused persons Rashid, Sazid and Akram with such intention
or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if by that act
injured persons had died, they would have been guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

57. In the present case, none of the prosecution witnesses
including the injured persons have deposed as to any previous
animosity between the injured persons and accused persons.
PW3 have simply deposed that on 10.09.2012 between 9 to 10
pm, when he returned from his office in his Hyundai Accent car
bearing registration no. UP-16S-4383 and parked his car near
his house, accused Rashid came from behind holding a knife
in his hand and grabbed his collar and dragged him out of his
car and attacked him with knife. In this regard, it is pertinent to
refer to Ex.DW5/B, which is the order No. 515-544/HAR/East
Distt. dated 27.01.2020, whereby record pertaining to
Kalandara vide DD No. 92-B dated 04.08.2012 was weeded
out. The fact that said Kalandara vide DD No. 92-B was
registered on 04.08.2012 qua some quarrel between the
parties shows existence of some dispute between the parties
prior to the incident dated 10.09.2012. The nature of dispute
between the parties prior to the incident dated 10.09.2012 has
surfaced in the cross-examination dated 06.02.2025 of DW6 by
the Ld. APP, where accused Rashid admitted that there was a
Page no. 48
dispute regarding parking and he further stated that the dispute
was 2-3 months prior to the incident. Thus, from the evidence
adduced on behalf of the parties does show existence of prior
animosity between the accused persons and injured persons.
Further accused Mohd. Sazid deposed as DW2 and accused
Rashid deposed as DW6, but despite intention or knowledge to
cause the impugned act forming an essential ingredient of
Section 308 IPC, no question in the regard have been put by
the prosecution to these accused persons. PW2 in his
testimony has deposed that during the incident accused Akram
stated exhorting the other accused persons that “sale ye apne
aap ko bahut bante hein, in salo ko aaj jaan se khatam karna
hai”, however no other injured witness has corroborated his
testimony regarding the said utterances by accused Akram and
even his statement recorded by the IO under section 161
Cr.P.C. is completely silent in this regard. Thus, in view of the
facts proved on record, the court does not find that accused
persons inflicted the injuries to the injuried person with such
intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that
that, if by that act injured persons had died, they would have
been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
However, from the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW1,
PW2, PW3 and PW5 and MLCs Ex.PW16/A, Mark 8/A & Mark
8/B (referred to as Ex.PW8/A & Ex.PW8/B in the testimony of
PW18), Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW. 17/A and Ex.PW17B, it has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons
namely Akram, Sazid and Rashid inflicted grievous injuries to
the injured persons by using iron rods. It has also been proved
beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rashid bit the lower lip
of Nabi Rasool during the incident resulting in the avulsed lip
for which injured Nabi Rasool had to undergo lip reconstruction
surgery.

Page no. 49

58. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that
accused Akram, Sazid and Rashid committed the offence
under Section 326/34 IPC as they caused grievous injuries to
the injured persons with the iron rod. However, the prosecution
has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts the charge
under Section 326/34 IPC against accused Shabnam and
Heena. Accordingly, accused persons Akram, Sazid and
Rashid are convicted for the offence under section 326 read
with section 34 IPC and accused Heena and Shabnam are
acquitted of the charge under Section 326 read with Section 34
IPC. The Court also finds that prosecution has failed to prove
the charge under section 308/34 against the accused Akram,
Sazid, Rashid, Heena and Sabnam. The charge under section
379 IPC against accused Rashid has also not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Rashid has also been
found guilty of the charge separately for the offence under
section 325 IPC as he bit the lower lip of Nabi Rasool so
forcibly that the same was severed off.

59. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convicts namely
Akram, Sazid and Rashid free of cost against due
acknowledgment.

60. Let the convicts namely Akram, Sazid and Rashid be heard on
point of sentence separately.

Announced in the open court
on this 09th Day of May, 2025.

(Alok Shukla)
Additional Session Judge-2/
Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances)
East/Karkardooma/Delhi/09.05.2025
Digitally signed by
ALOK ALOK SHUKLA

SHUKLA Date: 2025.05.09
Page no. 5016:19:10 +0530