Delhi District Court
State vs Ajruddin And Ors on 10 March, 2025
CR Cases 1021/2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANKALP KAPOOR, JMFC-04, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs Ajruddin & Anr
FIR No. : 248/2018
U/s : 324/341/506/34 IPC
PS : Sangam Vihar
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 1021/2019
b) CNR No. : DLST02-005573-2019
c) The date of commission of : 26.06.2018
the offence
d) Name of the complainant : - Kalik Raza S/o Sh. Babu Siddiqui
R/o I-2168B, Gali No.28, Sangam Vihar, ND
e) Name, parentage & address : 1. Ajruddin @ Ajju S/o Sh. Abdul Sattar
of accused R/o H. No.1996, Gali No.24, I Block, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Nishar Khan S/o Sh. Abdul Sattar
R/o H. No.1996, Gali No.24, I Block, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi.
f) Offences complained of : 324/341/506/34 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : (1) Ajruddin @ Ajju – Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.1 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:49:56
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019persons (2) Nishar Khan – Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : (1) Ajruddin @ Ajju – Convicted
persons (2) Nishar Khan – Convicted
i) Date of institution of case : 15.02.2019
k) Date of Judgment : 10.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case under Section
324/341/506/34 Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter for brevity ‘IPC‘).
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2018 at about
09:00 Near K Block, Gali No. 19, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi the accused
persons namely Ajruddin @ Ajju and Nishar Khan in furtherance of
common intention of them both had wrongfully restrained the complainant
Sh. Khalik Raza and voluntarily caused simple injuries to the complainant
with the help of dangerous weapon. It is further alleged by the prosecution
that the accused persons had also threatened the complainant and his father
with dire consequences, if they reported their act by criminally intimidating
him. Thus, the accused persons are alleged to have committed offence(s)
under Section 324/341/506/34 IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. Charge-sheet
was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of charge-sheet and other
documents were supplied to the accused persons. Thereafter, charge under
Section(s) 324/341/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons by
the Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 29.09.2020 to which the accusedFIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.2 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:50:07
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The accused persons in their statement dated 25.10.2024 under
Section 294 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity ‘CrPC‘)
admitted the FIR bearing number 248/2018, PS Sangam Vihar, certificate
under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, DD number 88B and 67A both
dated 26.06.2018 and MLC of the victim Khalik Raza bearing number
500106034 dated 26.06.2016 of JPNATC.
In light of the admission of the aforesaid documents by the accused
persons following prosecution witnesses were admitted from the list of
witnesses and hence their examination was dispensed with:
i. HC Raj Kumar (DO who recorded FIR no. 248/2018, PS Sangam
Vihar), andii. Dr. Indrajit G. Momin, JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi (Doctor who
conducted the MLC no. 500106034 dated 26.06.2016 of the injured).
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined
three witnesses i.e., (1) Sh. Khalik Raza i.e., the complainant/ injured, (2)
Sh. Babu Siddiqui i.e., the father of the complainant and witness to presence
of accused persons at the spot right after the fact and (3) ASI Vijay Kumar,
IO of the case.
i. PW-1 Sh. Khalik Raza, the complainant and the injured in this case
stated in his examination in chief that prior to the date of the alleged
incident, the accused had made viral his video when he was playing
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.3 of 18
Digitally signed
by SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.03.10
17:50:15
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019cards and on the date of incident at about 11:00 am, some heated
arguments and scuffle had occurred between the accused Ajruddin
@ Ajju and the complainant regarding the same and the accused
Ajruddin had threatened the complainant that he would see him. It is
further the deposition of PW-1 that on the date of incident at about
09:00 pm at K Block, Gali No.19, he met elder brother of accused
Ajruddin @ Ajju namely Nasir and while he was talking to him, the
accused Ajruddin @ Ajju came there and started beating him. PW-1
further deposed that in the meanwhile, accused Nasir held the
complainant from his back and then accused Ajruddin @ Ajju had
assaulted him by a knife or with some sharp object on side of his rib,
on stomach and also on his head, because of which blood started
oozing out from his body. He further deposed that he was also
assaulted by legs and fists due to which he fell down. PW-1 further
deposed that public persons were gathered on the spot and someone
from the public had called his father who came at the spot and upon
seeing his father, the accused persons threatened him by stating that
if he made any complaint to any authority, then they will beat him
more. PW-1 further deposed that a call at 100 number was also
made. He further deposed that on his way to the hospital, he met the
police officials on the way wherein his medical examination was
got conducted. He further deposed that he was discharged from the
hospital on the next day and thereafter, he went to the PS, where his
statement was recorded by the police and the same was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 further deposed that after the registration of FIR,
he along-with his father went to the house of accused persons whereFIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.4 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:50:23
CR Cases 1021/2019no accused person was found and the police official met the father of
the accused. PW-1 also deposed regarding preparation of site plan of
the place of incident at his instance which was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/B.PW-1 correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
He also correctly identified his blood stained clothes i.e. one shirt of
black colour and one vest as the clothes that he was wearing on the
date of alleged incident.
In his cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel the
complainant deposed that he knew accused Nasir as he lives in his
locality and is his friend. He further deposed that he went to the
hospital at about 10:00 pm along-with his brother on a bike and in
the midway, they met the police official and then went to AIIMS in
their vehicle. He further deposed that there were no other public
person present at the spot at the time of the incident however, there
were public persons who were passing by from the spot. He further
deposed that his father had made a call to the police at about 09:35
pm, and at that time he was at his house. He voluntarily added that
first call to the police was made at the place of the incident and the
second call was made from the house. He further deposed that he
went to the PS at about 11:00 am – 12:00 noon on the next day and
stated that he was discharged from the hospital on the next day at
about 06:00 – 07:00 am. He further deposed that his father
accompanied him from the hospital to the house. He further deposedFIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.5 of 18
Digitally signed
SANKALP by SANKALP
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2025.03.10
17:50:32 +0530
CR Cases 1021/2019that on 27.06.2018, he along-with his father had shown the police
official the house of the accused persons. He further deposed that he
did not remember the name of the IO due to span of time and stated
that his statement was recorded by the police on 27.06.2018 between
11:00 am – 12:00 noon. He lastly denied the suggestion that the
accused persons have been wrongly implicated in the instant case.
ii. PW-2, Sh. Babu Siddiqui deposed that on 26.07.2018, at about 09:00
pm, while he was at his home, some children of his locality had
come to his house and told him that somebody is fighting with his
son in Gali no.19 at a corner of I and K Block. He deposed that upon
receiving the said information, he went to the said spot and there he
saw that accused Nasir and Ajruddin were running from the spot and
blood was oozing out from the abdomen of his son. He further
deposed that thereafter, he made a call at 100 number and police and
ambulance had also come to the spot and his son was taken to
AIIMS Trauma Centre. He further deposed that he also went with
his son and stay at the hospital entire night and on the next day at
about 11:00 am, they reached the PS where a complaint in writing
was given to the IO.
Ld. APP for the State had also put certain leading questions to the
witness as he was not coming up with the entire facts of the case.
During the cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW-2
accepted as correct the suggestion that accused Ajurddin and Nasir
were holding a sharp object in their hand when they were present atFIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.6 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:50:39
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019the spot.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-2 deposed that
he knows both accused persons since their childhood. He accepted
as correct the suggestion that he was at his home when the alleged
fight was occurred. He also accepted that he did not see the accused
persons beating his son. He also accepted that the place of incident is
a residential colony and people reside in the said neighborhood. He
further deposed that he made a call at 100 number at about 09:00 pm
and stated that he is not able to remember the name of the children
who came to his house to inform him with regard to the incident. He
further deposed that other persons were also present at the spot when
he reached there. He further stated that he cannot recollect the time
when the ambulance reached at the spot. He further deposed that
when he reached at the spot, he saw a sharp object in the hand of
accused Ajruddin but stated that he cannot recollect the clothes worn
by the accused persons at the time of incident. He further deposed
that there were three police officials who had come to the spot but he
was unable to recollect their names or designation at the time of the
cross examination. He accepted as correct the suggestion that he
had not called the ambulance and it was called by the police
officials. PW-2 denied the suggestion that no such incident had even
occurred place or that he had not seen the accused with a sharp
object in his hand at the time of the incident. He stated that his
statement u/S 161 CrPC was recorded on the next day of the
incident. He further deposed that he was unable to recollect theFIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.7 of 18
Digitally signed
by SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.03.10
17:50:48
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019name of police official who had recorded his statement. He further
deposed that his son was discharged from the hospital at about 11:00
am – 12:00 noon on the next day but added that he was not sure
about the said time. He further deposed that he along-with his son
and police official went to the house of accused persons where they
met with the father of accused persons. He further deposed that he
did not know whether the police had examined or inquired from any
other public persons or not. He lastly denied the suggestion that no
such incident had ever occurred or that the injuried on the body of
his son were self inflicted. He lastly denied the suggestion that he
was deposing falsely.
iii. PW-3, Sub-Inspector Vijay, deposed that on 26.06.2018 while he
was posted as ASI at PS Sangam Vihar. He further deposed that he
was marked the DD number 67A, whereupon he along-with Ct.
Ashok reached the spot i.e. I Block, H. No. 2168, Gali no.28, near
MCD School, Sangam Vihar. He further deposed that upon inquiry,
he came to know that the injured has been taken to hospital for
treatment and added that he did not even meet the father of the
complainant at the said time. He further deposed that he also made a
call on the number from which 100 number call was made and also
inquired from the local public persons but no one came forward with
the facts of the incident or where the injured was taken for treatment.
He further deposed that at around 11:45 pm, he received an MLC
vide DD no.88B and reached the hospital from where he collected
the MLC of injured Khalik Raza and the doctor had also given himFIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.8 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:50:56
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019blood stained clothes of the injured which were seized by him vide
seizure memo Ex.PW2/A (incorrectly mentioned as Ex.PW2/A in
the deposition of PW-3). He further deposed that he also recorded
the statement of the complainant and prepared a rukka whereupon an
FIR was registered. He further deposed that he also prepared the site
plan at a instance of the injured and thereafter, made efforts to trace
out the accused persons but they were not found at their residence.
He further deposed that he also arrested the accused persons on
18.09.2018 and released them on police bail upon furnishing of bail
bonds. PW-3 also exhibited the documents pertaining to arrest,
disclosure, release on police bail of the accused persons. He further
deposed that he also collected the result of the MLC of the injured
wherein it was opined that the injury was simple and sharp. He also
deposed regarding recording of statement of witnesses under Section
161 CrPC and correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
In his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel PW-3 deposed
that he received the information regarding the incident at about
09:00 pm, and reached the spot at about 09:15 pm, where he stayed
for about 15-20 minutes. He further deposed that thereafter, he came
to the PS. He further deposed that he visited the hospital with Ct.
Ashok and accepted as correct that he had not found the injured or
the caller at the spot. He accepted as correct the suggestion that he
had neither examined nor recorded the statement of any public
persons. He further deposed that at the time of recording of
statement of the injured, his father and his relatives were also
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.9 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:51:08
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019present. He further deposed that he did not find any blood stain at
the place of incident and that he did not call the crime team at the
spot. He stated that he did not do any videography or photography of
the place of incident. He stated that no weapon was recovered from
the possession of the accused or from the spot. He also denied the
suggestion that injury of complainant was self inflicted. He denied
the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated by
the complainant due to their previous enmity. He denied the
suggestion that he did not do a fair and proper investigation of the
case or that the entire investigation was done while sitting at the PS.
5. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 25.10.2024 and statement of
accused persons was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein the accused
persons denied all the allegations, pleaded innocence and stated that they
had been falsely implicated in the case. They further stated that they do not
want to lead defence evidence.
6. I have heard the submissions addressed by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld.
Counsel Sh. Rizwan Khan for accused persons and carefully perused the
documents on record.
7. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has submitted that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Ld. APP has
submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the accused persons are liable to convicted.
8. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of this
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.10 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:51:15
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019case.
“Hurt” has been defined under Section 319 IPC. Same is reproduced
verbatim as under:-
“Section 319 IPC-whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any
person is said to cause hurt.”
Punishment for “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”
has been defined under Section 324 IPC. Same is reproduced verbatim as
under:-
“Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for
shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used
as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means
of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or
any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive
substance or by means of any substance which it is
deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to
receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.
9. In the case at hand, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-1 i.e., the
injured Khalik Raza. This witness has fully corroborated the prosecution
story. He has narrated the entire incident in a clear and a lucid manner. No
material discrepancy could be found in the testimony of this witness. The
defence has not been able to impeach the credibility of this witness in cross
examination or to shake the veracity of his statement.
10. The ocular testimony of PW-1 is further corroborated by the medical
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.11 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:51:23
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019evidence i.e., MLC of the injured Khalik Raza, which is Ex.A-5. As per the
MLC, the injury of the complainant is referred to as simple injury by sharp
object. The nature of the injury is opined to be simple in nature. It is also
mentioned on the MLC that the injury has been caused by a sharp weapon. It
needs to be appreciated that the testimony of the complainant Khalik that he
was hit by the accused person namely Ajruddin @ Ajju with some sharp
object on one side of his rib, stomach and head while he was held from back
by accused Nasir is also corroborated by the document Ex. A-5 as it clearly
depicts three wounds on the body of the complainant Khalik Raza, one on
abdomen, one on lateral chest and the third would over scalp region.
11.The Ld. Counsel for the accused has in final arguments submitted that the
injury received by the complainant is self-inflicted. Furthermore, only a
suggestion was put to PW-1 and PW-2 during their cross-examination that
the injury was self-inflicted injury however, no evidence has been led by the
defence to corroborate the said suggestion during defence evidence.
12.Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that the public witnesses of the case
have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. In the case
in hand, the accused has been duly identified by other eye-witnesses PW-2
who came at the spot after he came to know about the incident. However, it
needs to be appreciated that PW-2 is not a witness from the general public
and is father of the victim and knows the accused persons since long and
hence the identification of the accused persons by PW-2 is understood. It
further needs to be appreciated that PW-2 supported the prosecution case qua
the factum that the accused persons were present at the spot on the date of
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.12 of 18
Digitally signed
by SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.03.10
17:51:30
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019the incident and that when he reached the spot he saw the accused persons
holding a sharp object in their hand when he saw them. PW-2 has thus
supported the prosecution version to the extent that the accused persons were
present at the spot along-with the complainant and was seen going armed
with sharp object when leaving the spot.
It is a settled proportion of law that evidence of a prosecution witness
cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him
as hostile and cross examined him qua a particular aspect. The evidence of
such witnesses cannot be treated effaced or washed of the record altogether.
The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be
dependable upon a careful scrutiny. Therefore, it has to be seen, if the
evidence of such witnesses can be relied in part. The perusal of the
testimony of PW-2 will go on to show that he is a witness post facto and he
has been able to prove the presence of the accused persons at the spot.
13.Ld. Counsel for accused has also stated that the IO has failed to join any
other public witness despite availability. However, law is well settled in this
regard.
In “Namdeo vs State of Maharashtra”, Crl Appeal No.914/2006
decided on 13.03.2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon
its earlier judgment in “Vadivelu Thevar vs State of Madras” 1957 SER
981 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Court as under:-
“1. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the
testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One
credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other
witnesses of indifferent character.
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.13 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:51:38
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019
2. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts
should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the
nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as
a rule prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon,
for example in case of a child witness or an accomplice or a
witness of analogue character.
3. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness
is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid
down in a matter like this and much depend upon the judicial
discretion of the judge before whom the case comes.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the testimony of a
solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the
witness is required to be decided with reference to the quality of his
evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress
the court as fact wholly truthful and so convincing that the court has no
hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony.
In case titled as “Shadab @ Shamshad vs State of Govt. of NCT of
Delhi”, Criminal Appeal 1377/2012 decided on 11.03.2014 it was held by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, “There is no hard and fast rule that the
testimony of injured requires corroboration before conviction. However, the
rule of prudence has to be kept in mind. If the testimony of injured is
trustworthy, categorically free of bias, and if there is nothing on record to
suggest that the injured has any motive to falsely implicate the accused and
allow his real assailants go scot free, the conviction can be based on the
sole testimony of injured.”
14.In the case at hand, the testimony of the injured has remained intact on all
the material points and defence has not been able to demolish it in the cross
examination. The court fails to see any reason as to why the complainant
would depose against the accused or falsely implicate him. There is no
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.14 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:51:45
CR Cases 1021/2019reason to discredit the testimony of PW-1. The injured/ complainant has
clearly stated in his testimony and identified the accused. The cross-
examination of PW-1 by Ld. defence counsel was not able to discredit him
on any material points and no prior enmity could be shown by the accused
persons which could have made the complainant falsely implicate the
accused. The accused persons had not denied their presence at the place of
incident.
15.The accused persons in their examination under Section 313 CrPC stated
that they have been falsely implicated in the case, and their defence during
cross-examination of PW-1 was that the injury has been caused to the
complainant because of his own doing. However, the accused persons have
not lead any defence evidence despite opportunity and had merely given a
bald statement that the complainant had falsely implicated them but had not
lead any evidence or motive for the said false implication.
Now, coming on to the aspect of cause of injury of the complainant. In
order to prove the said fact on the part of the accused, the prosecution has
examined, PW-1 who being the sole injured and a material witness to the
case. The complainant in his deposition before the Court has clearly depicted
the incident and had also mentioned the specific roles attributable to each of
the accused persons. The testimony of the complainant would go on to show
that the accused persons had acted in furtherance of common intention of
each other wherein the accused Nashir had caught hold of him from the back
on the date of the incident and the accused Ajruddin @ Ajju had hit him with
a sharp object on three places on his body and thereby causing injury. The
deposition clearly shows as to how the accused persons have both acted in
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.15 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:51:57
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019cohort and caused injury to the complainant.
16.However, an important question still remains in the present matter and it is
regarding the ingredients of Section 324 IPC and that of common intention
i.e., Section 34 IPC. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused persons in
final arguments that the offence u/S 324 IPC is not maintainable as there is
no recovery of the alleged weapon of offence.
17.At this stage, It is deemed apposite to cite the decision in Anwarul Haq V.
State of U.P. reported as (2005) 10 SCC 581 where, while maintaining the
conviction of the accused under Section 324 IPC despite non recovery of the
alleged weapon of offence, the Supreme Court had held as follows:
“11. We find that the trial court has analysed in great detail the
evidence of eyewitnesses, including that of PW-1, the injured
and therefore, there is no scope for interference. The plea that
the weapon used not a dangerous weapon had never been
urged before the trial court or the High Court. Whether
weapon is a dangerous weapon or not has to be gauged only
on the factual basis…
12… The expression “an instrument, which used as a weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death” should be construed with
reference to the nature of the instrument and not the manner
of its use. What has to be established by the prosecution is that
the accused voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt was
caused by means of an instrument referred to in this Section.
xxx
15. Eyewitnesses in the present case have described the knife, and
merely because the knife has not been recovered during
investigation same cannot be a factor to discard the evidence
of PWs 1 and 2. Wound noticed by the doctor (PW3) also
throw considerable light in this aspect. The doctor’s opinion
about the weapon, though theoretical, cannot be totally wiped
out. In that view of the matter the appellant has been rightly
convicted under Section 324 IPC.”
In light of the above decision, non recovery of the alleged weapon of
offence in the present case is held to be of no consequence, as the injured as well as
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.16 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:52:05
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019the witness after the fact i.e. PW-2 have consistently deposed that they have seen
the accused with a knife/ sharp object and the complainant clearly deposed that he
was hit by such sharp object and thereby injury was caused to him.
18. It also needs to be appreciated that the aspect of common intention has been
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as it is clear from the
testimony of PW-1 wherein it has been clearly stated by him that the accused
Nasir had caught hold of him from his back and accused Ajruddin @ Ajju
had started beating him and assaulted him with a knife or some sharp object.
It also needs to be appreciated that the allegation qua Section 341 IPC stand
duly proved as it has been clearly stated by PW-1 that he was held by the
accused Nasir at the time of the incident when accused Ajruddin was hitting
him with a knife/ sharp object.
19.Another allegation against the accused persons is that they have also
extended threat to the complainant that if he reports the act to the police then
they would again cause harm to him. At this stage, it needs to be appreciated
that the primary ingredient of Section 506 IPC is that the threat must have
been issued with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant but in the
instant matter and deposition of the PWs the prosecution has not been able
to establish if any alarm was caused to the complainant due to the threats
extended by the accused persons. At this juncture, this Court deems it
appropriate to place reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of X Vs. State Anr. pronounced on 27.01.2025 by Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan wherein it has been held by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi that mere threats given by the accused not with an intent to cause
FIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.17 of 18
Digitally
signed by
SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.03.10
17:52:11
+0530
CR Cases 1021/2019alarm to the complainant would not constitute an offence of criminal
intimidation as it has only been stated by the victim as a generic statement
that threat was issued to him however, he has not shown any alarm which
has been caused to the complainant by the said statement. In light of the
same, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to
establish the case against the accused persons qua the offence under Section
506 IPC and accordingly they deserve to be acquitted for the said offence.
20. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution
has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the offence
under Section 324/341/34 IPC against the accused persons. It has been
successfully proved that the accused persons had caused injury to the
complainant with a knife or sharp object and thereby causing injury on his
body. Accordingly, the accused persons stand convicted under Section
324/341/34 IPC.
21. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict/ Ld. Counsel
against acknowledgment.
Digitally signed
by SANKALP
SANKALP KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
Announced in the open Court
2025.03.10
17:52:17 +0530today i.e. on 10th March, 2025 (Sankalp Kapoor)
JMFC-04, South District
Saket Court/New DelhiFIR No. 248/2018 State Vs. Ajruddin & Ors. Page No.18 of 18