[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh @ Pichki on 23 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
SURESH @ PICHKI & ANR. FIR No.272/15
Police Station: Ranhola
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No. 56321/16
2. CNR no. DLWT01-000638-2015
3. Date of Institution 03.08.2015
4. Date of Commission of offence 12.04.2015
5. Name of the accused 1. Suresh @ Pichki
S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o House no.33 Kumhar
Gali, Rampura, Delhi
2. Naresh
S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o D-5, Gali no.8, Kunwar
Singh Nagar, Nangloi,
Najafgarh Road, Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 304/34 IPC
Section 308/34 IPC
Section 323/34 IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment 11.07.2025 Digitally
signed by
POOJA
9. Final order Convicted POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:08:36
10. Date of such judgment 23.07.2025 +0530
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 1 of 37
FIR no.272/15
Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that vide DD no.45A a
call was received from the complainant stating that on
12.04.2015 at about 10:30 PM, he was sitting near poultry farm
situated in the street on the back side of his house. The accused
Suresh @ Pichki who was residing in the said gali, under the
influence of alcohol started abusing him. Brother of the accused
namely Naresh also joined accused Suresh and both of them
started abusing and beating the complainant. Accused Suresh hit
the complainant on his head with a brick. Bother of complainant,
Kamal came there to rescue him but the accused persons gave
beatings to his brother as well. Thereafter, his father namely Sh.
Ram Kumar came there and tried to intervene. Thereafter
accused persons started running from there on seeing the father
of complainant. Complainant and his brother ran after the
accused persons but the accused persons hid themselves behind a
wall and they picked up bricks which were lying in the street and
they hit the father of the complainant with bricks in his abdomen,
on his hands and head. Father of the complainant fell on the
ground and he was unable to stand up due to pain. Thereafter
Complainant called at 100 number. Complainant took his father
in the PCR van by lifting him in his hands and his father was
taken to Sanjay Ghandhi Hospital. Complainant went to police
station and his statement was recorded by the IO. Thereafter, the
present case was registered.
2. On the basis of complaint, FIR under Section Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
304/323/308/34 IPC was registered against both the accused TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:08:51
+0530persons.
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 2 of 37
FIR no.272/15
Charge
3. Charge was framed against both the accused persons
under Section 304/34, 308/34 and 323/34 IPC vide order dated
18.08.2015.
Prosecution evidence
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined
thirteen witnesses as under :-
Material witnesses:
(i) PW6: Mr. Naveen Saxena (Complainant) deposed that:
” I alongwith my father and brother was residing at the
above mentioned address at the time of incident. On 12.04.2015
at about 10.30 p.m., I was sitting near poultry farm situated in the
street on the back side of my house. The accused Suresh @
Pichki, who was residing in the said gali, came near to me and
started abusing me. At that time he was under the influence of
alcohol. The accused Suresh @Pichki, who is present in the
Court today (witness has correctly identified). The brother of
accused namely Naresh also joined him and both of them started
abusing and beating me. The accused Suresh @ Pichki hit me on
my head with a brick. My brother Kamal came to my rescue but
the accused persons gave beatings to my brother also. Thereafter,
my father namely Sh. Ram Kumar (since deceased) came there
and tried to intervene. The accused persons started running from
there on seeing my father and my father followed them. Me and
my brother also ran after the accused persons. The accused
persons hid themselves behind a wall and they picked up bricks
Digitally
signed by
which were lying in the street and they hit my father on his POOJA
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
abdomen, on his hands and on his head. My father fell on the
2025.07.23
14:09:04
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 3 of 37
FIR no.272/15
ground and he was unable to stand up due to pain. I called at 100
number. I took my father to the PCR van by lifting him in my
hands and my father was taken to Sanjay Ghandhi Hospital. I
went to police station and my statement was recorded by the 1.O.
Same is Ex.PW-6/A bearing my signature at point A. On
18.04.2015, I joined investigation of the present case with IO On
that day, I had identified the dead body of my father in the
mortuary of Sanjay Ghadhi Hospital vide memo Ex.PW-6/B
bearing my signature point A. Thereafter, postmortem of my
father was conducted. Thereafter, I alongwith IO went to gali
No.9. I had shown the place of incident to the IO and IO had
prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/C bearing my signature at point
A. Thereafter, the accused persons namely Suresh and Naresh,
who are present in the Court today (witness has correctly
identified) were arrested by the IO in the presence of my brother
and myself vide memos Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW-6/E respectively,
both bearing my signature at point A. Personal search of the
aforesaid accused persons was conducted vide memos
Ex.PW-6/F and Ex.PW-6/G respectively, both bearing my
signature at point A. The IO had seized the bricks from the place
of incident at our instance vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/H
bearing my signature at point A. I.O. recorded my statement. I
can also identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage,
MHC(M) PS Ranhola has produced one duly sealed pullanda
(polythene) sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary. Mangol
Puri. Delhi bearing the case particulars of the present case. The
same is opened with the permission of the court. On opening the
same, it is found containing one yellow-green coloured
POOJA
underwear having blood stains and one dark grey coloured TALWAR
Digitally signed bytrouser. Same are shown to the witness, who correctly identified
POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2025.07.23
14:09:18 +0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 4 of 37
FIR no.272/15
as the same clothes which his father was wearing at the time of
incident. Yellow-green coloured underwear is Ex.PX-1 and dark
grey colour trouser is now Ex PX-2. MHC(M) has also produced
one another duly sealed plastic bag duly sealed bearing case
particulars of the present case and the slip of SGMH, seal is not
legible. The same is opened and out of it seven brick pieces are
taken out. (The six brick pieces were seized and during the
custody of the case property and production of the same before
the court, caused breakage in one large brick piece, converting
into two pieces, so seven pieces have been recovered). Same are
shown to the witness. Witness has identified the same as the
brick pieces with which injuries were caused to him and other
persons. (Objected to by ld. LAC for both accused persons. It is
pointed out that the gunny bag in which brick pieces have been
produced in sealed condition, is torn from some places, which
have been stitched with thread which is measuring about one
feet). The brick pieces are now collectively Ex PX-3.”
(ii) PW9: Mr. Kamal Saxena (brother of complainant) deposed
that:
“I alongwith my father and brother were resided at the
above mentioned address at the time of incident. Now, I do not
remember the date of the incident but it was happened in the
month of April in the year of 2015. On the day of incident at
about 10-11 pm I alongwith my brother namely Naveen Saxena
were standing in the street. Accused Suresh and Naresh came
near to me and started abusing to my brother namely Naveen
Saxena. Accused Suresh @ Pichki was under the influence of
alcohol (objected to by Id. Defence counsel). Both the accused
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
started abusing and beating to my brother by the bricks. I also 2025.07.23
14:09:44
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 5 of 37
FIR no.272/15
came to rescue my brother. Both accused also started gave
beatings to me by the bricks. After hearing the noise, my father
namely Ram Kumar Saxena came there and tried to rescue us.
Both accused persons had started given beatings to my father
with bricks. Due to given beatings by bricks, my father sustained
injuries in his stomach. Accused also hit on the head of my father
with brick. Due to which, my father fell down on the ground and
he was unable to stand due to pain. Thereafter my brother made a
call at 100 number. Accused persons were fled away from the
spot. PCR van came at the spot and took my father to SGM
hospital. The treatment of my father was started there and my
brother also admitted there for one day. My father was under
treatment at the hospital for 4-5 days. Thereafter, the health of
my father was deteriorated and he expired in the hospital due to
said injuries. The dead body of my father was handed over to us
after the postmortem vide handing over memo now Ex.PW9/A
bearing my signatures at point A. thereafter, IO recorded my
identification statement which is now Ex.PW9/B bearing my
signatures at point A. Police came at the spot and I had shown
the place of incident to the police. Police prepared site plan at my
instance. Same is already Ex.PW6/C. (objected to by ld. Defence
counsel as hit by section 162 Cr.P.C). Both accused were
arrested by the police vide arrest memo already Ex.PW6/E and
Ex.PW6/D, both bears my signatures at point C. their personal
search were conducted vide memos already Ex.PW6/F and
Ex.PW6/G, both bears my signatures at point C. (objected to by
Id. Defence counsel as hit by section 162 Cr.P.C). My statement
was recorded by the Io. Both accused are present in court today
Digitally
signed by(correctly identified). I can identify the case property i.e., bricks POOJA
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
if shown to me. The case property is already exhibited as
14:09:56
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 6 of 37
FIR no.272/15
Fx.PX-3 (colly)”.
(iii) PW10: Mr. Naveen Sharma S/o Sh. Sushil Sharma deposed
that:
“I do not remember the date of incident. At the time of
incident, I was studying at Govt. Boys Sr. School, Bapola in 9th
class. Naveen and Kamal used to stay near my house. Naveen
and Kamal had a quarrel with accused Suresh and Naresh. On
12.04.2015, at 10:30 pm near Murga Farm, Chancal Park,
Najafgarh road, Nangloi, Delhi, I saw accused Suresh and
Naresh who were in drunk condition, and they both were giving
brick blows to Naveen and Kamal. In the meanwhile, Ram
Kumar Saxena father of Naveen came to the spot and both the
accused persons gave beating to Ram Kumar Saxena with the
brick and hit him on his head and stomach and other parts of the
body. Duc to which, Ram Kumar Saxena sustained injuries and
fell on the road. Both the accused persons ran away from the
spot. I do not know who made call at 100 no. After sometime,
police reached the spot. Accused Suresh and Naresh sustained
some minor injuries. Police shifted Ram Kumar Saxena to
Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. I came to know that he expired due to
the said injuries. Both accused persons present in the court
correctly identified by the witness. Police met me and my
statement u/s 161 CrP.C was recorded”.
(iv) PW12: Mr. Hemant S/o Sh. Kunwar Pal deposed that:
“In the year 2015 1 was working in factory at Mayapuri.
At that time I was residing in Chanchal Park. Naveen and Kamal
are my good friends. I know the accused Suresh and Naresh Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR(correctly identified by the witness) since my childhood as they TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:10:08
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 7 of 37
FIR no.272/15
are residing in my neighboorhood. Accused Suresh is friend of
father of Naveen. I do not remember the date of the incident. On
that day at about 10:30 PM, I was sitting with Kamal and Naveen
were sitting at the corner of the gali infront of vacant plot and
having liquor. Meanwhile accused Suresh and Naresh came to us
and thereafter Kamal, Naveen and Suresh and Naresh were
started abusing each other. They all started quarreling. Suddenly
accused Naresh gave blow of brick on the leg of Kamal. I did the
intervention and told them not to fight. Thereafter Naveen and
Kamal went to his house along with his father and accused
Suresh and Naresh also went to their home. Thereafter I also left
the spot.
At about 11:00 1 received a call from Naveen and he told
me that his father received an injury and he had to take his father
to the hospital. When I reached at the house of Naveen the
ambulance had already taken the father of Naveen to Sanjay
Gandhi Hospital. At this stage, Ld APP for the State seeks
permission to cross-examine the witness as he is not disclosing
complete facts.
Heard and allowed.
Xxxxx by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
During investigation I met with police. At this stage
statement U/s 161 Cr.PC Mark X of the witness, shown to the
witness. At this stage statement Mark X from A to Al is shown to
the witness. It is wrong to suggest that accused Suresh and
Naresh also gave blow of brick on Naveen. At this stage
statement Mark X from B to B1 is shown to the witness. It is
wrong to suggest that Ram Kumar Saxena also came at the spot Digitally
signed by
POOJA
for intervention and to stop the quarrel. At this stage statement POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:10:22
Mark X from C to C1 is shown to the witness. It is wrong to +0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 8 of 37
FIR no.272/15
suggest that Ram Kumar Saxena chased the accused Suresh and
Naresh. At this stage statement Mark X from D to D1 is shown
to the witness. It is wrong to suggest that both accused persons
had picked the bricks and hit on the stomach of Ram Kumar. It is
wrong to suggest that both accused persons had beaten Ram
Kumar mercilessly. At this stage statement Mark X from E toEl
is shown to the witness. It is wrong to suggest that Ram Kumar
Saxena sustained the injuries in front of me. It is wrong to
suggest that I along with Naveen and Kamal to SGM Hospital. It
is wrong to suggest that I won over by the accused persons. It is
wrong to suggest that I am deliberately deposing falsely to save
the accused persons in the present case”.
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW2: Dr. Bina deposed that on 13.04.2015, she examined the
patient Ram Kumar, aged about 48 years male person brought to
the hospital with history of physical assault. After examination,
she found following injuries.
1 Tenderness over left hand little finger.
2 Tenderness and abrasion over epigastric region of abdomen.
3 CLW over left side temporal region of scalp of approximately
2cm X 0.5cm X 0.5cm.
4 Swelling over left side of face.
She referred the patient to the department of surgery
and ortho. She prepared the MLC Ex.PW2/A. On the same day,
she also examined Naveen, 18 years old male. He has injury over
left side of parietal region approximately 2cm X 0.5cm X 0.5cm.
She prepared the MLC Ex PW 2/B. She had seen MLC NO. 6238 Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
of Suresh prepared by Dr. Rahul under her supervision, MLC TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:10:34
+0530Ex.PW2/C. She had seen MLC No.6239 of Naresh, prepared by
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 9 of 37
FIR no.272/15
Dr. Rahul under her supervision. MLC Ex.PW2/D bearing her
signatures at point A and signature of Dr. Rahul at point B. She
examined Ram Kumar, 48 years old male on 18.04.2015. After
examination, she declared the patient brought dead. MLC is
Ex.PW2/E.
(ii) PW5: Dr. Munish Wadhawan deposed that on 18.04.2015 he
conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Ram
Kumar Saxena 48 years male with the alleged history of physical
assault on 12.04.2015. The body was brought by SI Jasbir PS
Ranhola and identified by Ram Bharse and Ram Avtar Saxena.
On postmortem examination following injury were found:-
1. Greenish blue bruise, 10 X 6 cm on front of right abdomen.
2. Fracture deformity of left little finger with blood extravasation
in surrounding tissues.
3. Lacerated wound 1.6X 0.3 cm X bone deep on left temporal
region.
4. Greenish blue bruise, 5 X4 cm on left face.
On the internal examination, about 1 litre of blood
mixed fluid present in Peritoneal Cavity. Liver was lacerated
along the anterior surface. Cause of death was due to
hemorrhagic shock as a result of hepatic injury due to blunt
Force/object diverted upon abdomen. Hepatic injury is sufficient
to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries were
antemortem in nature. Time since death approx. 12 hours. After
the postmortem body was handed over to IO along with PMR
no.325/15 along with 15 inquest papers, sealed blood sample in
gauze piece, sample seal of the department, sealed regard i.e.
Digitally
clothes. He prepared his detailed report in this postmortem report
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
no.325/15 Ex.PW5/A (running into 4 pages). On 10.07.2015, he
14:10:51
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 10 of 37
FIR no.272/15
received an application from Sl Jasbir Malik alongwith sealed
white plastic bag with the seal of JS for subsequent opinion
regarding the weapon of offence. On opening the plastic bag six
broken brick pieces came out. After going through PM 325/15
and examining the weapon of offence opinion is injuries
mentioned in postmortem report are possible with the brick
pieces examined or similar one. Weapon resealed with seal of
SGMH MORTUARY MANGOLPURI, DELHI-83 signed and
handed over to IO alongwith his opinion Ex.PW5/B.Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW1: SI Rambir Singh deposed that on the intervening night
of 17/18.04.2015. He was working as duty officer from 12:00
midnight to 8:00 am. At about 12:30am, he received a rukka
given by SI Jasbir Singh, he lodged DD no.6A as ‘kayami’ of FIR
No.272/15. Thereafter, on the basis of the rukka he got registered
the FIR no.272/15. He brought the register of the computerize
copy of the FIR. Copy of the FIR is Ex.PW1/A. He made an
endorsement at point X on rukka Ex PW 1/B. After registration
of the FIR, he handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka
to HC Deepak for handing over the same to SI Jasbir for the
purpose of the further investigation. He issued certificate u/s 65
B evidence act in respect of the computerized copy of the FIR.
The said certificate is Ex.PW1/C. On the same day, at around
4:40 am, he received a telephonic call made by duty Ct. Krishan
from SGM hospital regarding the death of Ram Kumar s/o
Sunder Lal, on the basis of the same he recorded the DD no.8A.
Digitally
After lodging the said DD it was sent to SI Jasbir through HC POOJA
signed by
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
Deepak for the further necessary action. He produced the original 2025.07.23
14:11:03
+0530DD register. Copy of the said DD is Ex.PW1/D.
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 11 of 37
FIR no.272/15
(ii) PW3: Ct. Mahender deposed that on 12.04.2015, he was on
duty at PCR power 62 from 8:00pm to 8:00am as in-charge of the
said van. The Base of the said PCR was at Petrol Pump near PS
Ranhola. At around 10:50pm, they received an information
regarding quarrel at H. No.128/129, Gali no.9, Chanchal Park
from Control Room. Upon receiving the said information, he
alongwith PCR van and its driver reached at the spot where
injured Ram Kumar and Naveen met them. Ram Kumar had
more injuries than Naveen. He took both of them to SGM
hospital. Injured Ram Kumar and Naveen told him that their
neighbour namely Naresh and Suresh caused injuries to them by
stone and bricks.
(iii) PW4: Ct. Jagmohan deposed that on the intervening night of
12/13.04.2015, he was on emergency duty from 8:00pm to
8:00am, alongwith ASI Bajrang Lal. Upon receiving the
information, he alongwith ASI Bajrang Lal reached Chanchal
Park near Bakkarwala, where they came to know that injured
persons were shifted to SGM hospital. Assailants namely Suresh
and Naresh also received injuries and they were found at the spot
under the influence of the Alcohol. He took both of them to SGM
hospital for medical examination. Injured persons were already
getting treatment in the emergency ward of the hospital, where
one of the accused started abusing and quarreling with one
injured. He did not remember the name of the accused who
quarreled with injured at this moment. After the medical
examination of the Suresh and Naresh, he took both of the them Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWARto the police station and handed over their custody to ASI TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:11:15
+0530Bajrang Lal.
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 12 of 37
FIR no.272/15
(iv) PW7: H.Ct. Naresh Kumar deposed that on 18.04.2015 he
joined investigation in the present case with the IO/ASI Jasbir
Malik and alongwith IO and other police staff went to Gali No.9,
Chanchal Park, Bakarwalan. There they met complainant Naveen
and his brother Kamal. The IO made enquiries from them.
Thereafter, I.O. prepared the site plan at their instance. Then, IO
arrested the accused Suresh @ Pichki and Naresh at the instance
of Naveen and Kamal vide arrest memos Ex.PW6/D and
Ex.PW6/E respectively. Personal search of the accused persons
was conducted vide memos Ex.PW6/F and Ex. PW6/G
respectively. The disclosure statements of the accused persons
were recorded in his presence. The same are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.
PW-7/B. Thereafter, IO took into possession 6 pieces of bricks at
the identification of the complainant and his brother. Same were
put in a plastic bag and was sealed with the seal of “JS”.
Aforesaid pullanda seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW6/H. Seal
after use was handed over to him by the IO. The accused persons
also pointed towards the place of incident vide pointing out
memo Ex.PW7/C. Thereafter, accused persons were taken to
SGM Hospital for medical examination and sent to lock-up. His
statement was recorded by the IO. Pieces of bricks Ex.PX3. He
admitted that the pieces of bricks which were 6 in number were
also recovered at the instance of accused persons from the corner
of gali no.9 Chancal Park, Bakkarwala Park.
(v) PW8: ASI Bajrang Lal deposed that on 12.04.2015 he was
informed by the DO about a PCR call about quarrel in the area of
Chanchal Park vide DD No.45-A. Copy of same is Ex.PW-8/A.
Digitally
One constable also accompanied him. At the spot they came to POOJA
signed by
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
know that both the injured parties were taken to SGM Hospital 2025.07.23
14:11:30
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 13 of 37
FIR no.272/15
by the PCR. Thereafter, he alongwith the said constable reached
at SGM Hospital there he found that 4 persons i.e. Ram Kumar,
Naveen, Suresh and Naresh were under treatment. The MLC of
these persons were incomplete as they were under treatment at
that time. He also received another DD No.4A about the same
quarrel from the opposite party. Copy of the same is Ex.PW8/B.
He made inquiries from injured Ram Kumar, who told him that
he would give his statement in the PS. The opposite party also
did not make any statement. So, he came back to P.S. and the
case was kept pending vide DD NO.47-B Ex.PW8/C.
He admitted that injured Ram Kumar told him orally that
he was beaten with bricks by Naresh and Suresh residing in his
neighborhood. He admitted that due to lapse of time he could not
recollect this fact while giving his statement in his examination-
in-chief.
(vi) PW11: SI Jasbir Malik deposed that on intervening night of
17/18.04.2015, he was on emergency duty in the PS. On
17.04.2015 at about 10:30 pm, one public person namely Naveen
Saxena came to PS and told him that on 12.04.2015 they had a
quarrel with accused Suresh and Naresh and in that quarrel, he,
his father and his brother sustained injuries. He further told that
his father Ram Kumar is under treatment at SGM Hospital. He
recorded statement of said public person Naveen and prepared
rukka under his statement Ex.PW11/A and got the FIR
registered. Regarding the said statement of complainant a DD
no.45A already registered at their PS Ex.PW8/A. He collected
DD no.45A, he along with complainant Naveen reached at
Digitallyemergency ward of SGM hospital and collected the MLC of Ram POOJA
signed by
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
Kumar, father of complainant. Ram Kumar did not find in the
2025.07.23
14:11:43
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 14 of 37
FIR no.272/15
hospital. He returned to PS. On 18.04.2015 at about 4:40 am, an
information vide DD no.8A was received from SGM Hospital
regarding death of Ram Kumar father of complainant. The said
DD no.8A Ex.PWI/D he again went to SGM hospital and
collected all the medical documents relating to treatment of Ram
Kumar from the hospital. He collected the ML.C of other injured
Kamal and Naveen from SGM hospital. He also collected the
medical documents of accused Suresh and Naresh from SGM as
they were also taken to SGM hospital by PCR official on
12.04.2015. Kamal S/o Ram Kumar (deceased) met in SGM and
He recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He got the dead body
shifted to mortuary of SGM hospital. He prepared the inquest
papers Ex.PW11/B and got identified the dead body of deceased
from his sons and recorded their statement in this regard
Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW6/B. He got the postmortem of the dead
body of deceased conducted and after postmortem doctor handed
over to him sealed pullinda regarding the deceased which he took
into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. After
postmortem dead body was handed over to relatives vide handing
over memo Ex.PW9/A. He came to PS and deposited the case
property in the malkhana. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Naresh
and ERV staff and vehicle reached at the spot ie, near murga
farm, Chanchal park, Nangloi, Najafgarh road where complainant
Naveen and his brother Kamal met them. He prepared site plan of
the spot Ex.PW6/C at the instance of complainant. He along with
complainant reached the house of accused Naresh and Suresh
where both of them were present and he at the instance of
complainant arrested both of them vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/E Digitally
signed byand Ex.PW6/D. They were personally searched vide personal
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:11:56search memo Ex.PW6/F and Ex.PW6/G. He recorded their +0530
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 15 of 37
FIR no.272/15
disclosure statements Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/A. He prepared
pointing memo of the spot at the instance of both the accused
persons Ex.PW7/C. Both the accused persons took him to gali
no.12, chanchal park nala and from there they got recovered the
pieces of bricks. Complainant and his brother Kamal were with
them and they also identified the said pieces of bricks by which
accused persons caused injuries to them and their father. The said
pieces of bricks were 6 in number and he prepared its pullinda
and sealed with the seal of JS and took the same into police
possession vide Ex.PW6/T. Thereafter, he along with accused
persons came in PS and deposited the case property into
malkhana. On the next day, both the accused persons were
produced before the concerned curt and they were sent to JC. He
obtained subsequent opinion from doctor to provide opinion
whether injuries to deceased were caused by pieces of bricks
recovered vide application Ex.PW11/D. The subsequent opinion
is Ex.PW5/B. He recorded statement of ASI Bajrang lal to whom
DD no.45A dated 12.04.2015 was marked regarding the present
incident and collected copy of DD entry no.478 dated 13.04.2015
regarding his arrival to PS after attending DD no.45A. The said
DD is Ex.PW8/C. He recorded statements of the police staff who
accompanied ASI Bajrang Lal to the spot on receipt of DD
no.45A and admitted injured and accused persons to SGM
hospital. He recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC of witnesses. He
filed charge-sheet against both the accused persons. Pieces of
bricks were Ex.PX3.
(vii) PW13: SI Vijender deposed that on 18.04.2015 SI Jasbir
Singh, one seal pullanda along with sample seal of SGM Hospital
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
mortuary Mangol Puri along with one sealed pullanda sealed 2025.07.23
14:12:08
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 16 of 37
FIR no.272/15
with the seal of JS deposited in malkhana and he made entry in
register no. 19 at serial no. 110. The copy of same is Ex.PW13/A.
On 30.05.2015 he was transferred from PS Ranhola and he
handed over all the concerned records to the MHC(R).
5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC,
both the accused Suresh @ Pichki and Naresh stated that they
were badly beaten by Kamal and Naveen on restraining them
from consuming drugs, alcohol and gambling near his house.
Ramkumar died natural death. They had never ever thwacked
him.
Arguments on behalf of the State
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the sons of the
deceased who are injured themselves have supported the story of
the prosecution. Their testimony alongwith the testimony of
doctors and other prosecution witnesses is sufficient to hold the
accused persons guilty. Accused persons deserve to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
7. Ld. counsel for accused, per contra argued that they
have been falsely implicated. The complainant alongwith his
brother and deceased trespassed into their property. When they
tried to catch them they started running and in the process the
deceased fell on the bricks and sustained injuries. The eye
witnesses Naveen Sharma and Hemant have not supported the
story of the prosecution. There is a delay in registration of the Digitally
signed by
POOJA
FIR. Accused persons themselves sustained injuries and PCR call POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:12:21was made by them first. Hence accused persons deserve to be
+0530acquitted.
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 17 of 37
FIR no.272/15
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by all
concerned and have perused the records including documents
relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Observation of the Court
9. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on the
complaint Ex.PW6/A where it is alleged that on 12.04.2015
around 10.30 pm accused Suresh @ Pichki in inebriated state
started abusing the complainant. His brother accused Naresh was
also present with him and they jointly started abusing him.
Suddenly they both started manhandling him and hit a brick on
his head. His brother Kamal intervened but both the accused
persons started physically assaulting him as well. Thereafter their
father Ram Kumar tried to rescue them, however both the
accused persons hit Ram Kumar in his abdomen and his hands
with bricks. They caused injury on his head. Due to the impact,
Ram Kumar fell down and he called the PCR van. His father was
hospitalized and while still under treatment he succumbed to his
injuries and thereafter the present complaint was filed.
10. On the aforesaid complaint, charge under Section
304/34, 308/34 and 323/34 IPC was framed against both the
accused persons.
11. The star witness of prosecution in the present case is
PW6 Naveen Saxena who upon entering the witness box
reiterated the facts as mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW6/A. His
brother Kamal Saxena PW9 too was present at the time of Digitally
signed by
incident corroborated the testimony of his brother in all material POOJA
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
particulars. Both these witnesses successfully passed the test of
14:12:35
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 18 of 37
FIR no.272/15
extensive cross-examination. Despite the same their testimony
could not be impeached.
12. Prosecution besides these two injured/eye witnesses
also examined PW2 Dr. Bina to prove MLC Ex.PW2/A of
deceased Ram Kumar and MLC Ex.PW2/B of PW6 Naveen.
Besides Dr. Bina, Dr. Munish Wadhawan PW5 performed the
postmortem of the body of Ram Kumar. His opinion is
Ex.PW5/B.
13. Both these doctors proved the cause of death of
deceased Ram Kumar and also proved that injuries were
sustained by Naveen PW6.
14. Prosecution also examined PW1 SI Rambir Singh
who registered the FIR, PW3 Ct. Mahender who took the injured
persons to the hospital on the date of incident and the time as
stated by PW6 and PW9. PW7 HC Naresh was the part of
investigation team alongwith the IO.
15. PW8 ASI Bajrang Lal recorded two DDs DD
no.45A of the complainant and DD no.4A of the accused
persons. He kept the DD no.47B pending as Ram Kumar could
not give his statement on that day, being in hospital.
16. PW10 Naveen Sharma he was neighbhour of both
the complainant and the accused. He deposed that he saw the
accused persons in drunken condition and giving brick blows to
Digitally
PW6 Naveen and PW9 Kamal. He even witnessed Ram Kumar POOJA
signed by
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
being assaulted by the accused persons. This witness though 2025.07.23
14:12:52
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 19 of 37
FIR no.272/15
resiled from his previous statement at the time of cross-
examination hence his testimony would be scrutinized minutely
in the following paragraphs.
17. PW12 Hemant he was also the neighbour and was
present with complainant and his brother. He proved the factum
of quarrel and the fact of brick blows being given by accused
Naresh to Kamal.
18. In the light of testimony of prosecution witnesses, I
shall proceed to decide whether accused persons are guilty of the
offence with which they have been charged.
19. The accused persons have been charged with the
offence under Section 304/34, 308/34 and 323/34 IPC For ready
reference relevant sections are reproduced herein under:
20. Culpable homicide is defined under Section 299 IPC
however punishment for which is defined under Section 304 IPC.
Section 299 IPC is reproduced as under:
Culpable homicide – Whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits
the offence of culpable homicide.
Section 304- Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or Digitally
signed by
POOJA
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:13:05
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which +0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 20 of 37
FIR no.272/15
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any
intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death.
Section 308 IPC- Attempt to commit culpable homicide
Whoever does any Act with such intention or knowledge and
under such circumstances that, if he by that Act caused death, he
would be guilty of culpable homicide not amount to murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both,
and if hurt is caused to any person by such Act, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
21. Voluntarily causing hurt is defined under Section
321 IPC however punishment for which is defined under Section
323 IPC. Section 321 IPC is reproduced as under:
321-Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever does any act with the
intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the
knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person,
and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to
cause hurt”.
22. Hence in order to bring home charge culpability Digitally
signed by
POOJAunder the said provision the prosecution is required to prove: (a) POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:13:15
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 21 of 37
FIR no.272/15
the victim suffered from bodily pain, disease or infinity; (b) that
the accused caused the said bodily pain, etc.; (c) the accused did
so intentionally or with knowledge that in the process, hurt would
be caused; (d) that the case was not covered under Section 334 1
IPC.
23. Accused persons have been charged under Section
323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt on the person of Kamal.
PW6 Naveen Saxena deposed “My brother Kamal came to my
rescue but the accused persons gave beatings to my brother
also.”. There is no suggestion to the said witness that no beatings
were given to Kamal hence testimony of this witness is
unrebutted and uncontroverted.
24. PW9 Kamal too testified “I also came to rescue my
brother. Both accused also started giving beatings to me by the
bricks.”. Again there is no denial of the said fact by the accused
persons as no suggestion denying the said fact is given to the
witness.
25. PW10 Naveen Sharma in his deposition before the
court stated that ” I saw accused Suresh and Naresh who were in
drunk condition and they both were giving brick blows to
Naveen and Kamal.”
26. Though this witness denied the aforesaid fact in his
cross-examination but it is a settled proposition of law that
testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded altogether.
Digitally
signed by
Reliance is being placed on Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of POOJA
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, it was held that “Even if a witness is
14:13:26
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 22 of 37
FIR no.272/15
treated as ‘hostile’ and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be
written off altogether but must be considered with due care and
circumspection and that part of the testimony which is
creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. The Hon’ble
Court further laid down that as a matter of prudence to consider
the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of
proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been
declared “hostile” does not result in an automatic rejection of his
evidence. Even, the evidence of a “hostile witness” if it finds
corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into
account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no
legal bar to raise a. conviction upon a “hostile witness” testimony
if corroborated by other reliable evidence.”
27. Moreover this witness has admitted in his cross-
examination by Ld. Addl. PP that he has forgiven the accused
persons. Hence fact of his resiling from his previous statement
can be inferred to be because of his forgiveness to the accused
persons.
28. Further PW12 Hemant also stated “They all started
quarreling. Suddenly accused Naresh gave blow of brick on the
leg of Kamal.” This witness has not been cross-examined at all.
Hence the testimony of all these aforesaid witnesses remained
unrebutted and uncontroverted on the point of causing hurt to
PW9 Kamal by the accused persons.
29. It is argued on behalf of accused persons that there
is no MLC of Kamal on record to prove that he was beaten up by Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
the accused persons as alleged. TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:13:39
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 23 of 37
FIR no.272/15
30. It is a settled proposition of law that in order to
prove offence under Section 323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt,
ocular evidence if found reliable is sufficient to hold the accused
guilty and no corroboration in the form of MLC is a mandate.
Reliance is placed on Lakshman Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2021)
9 SCC 191.
31. From the aforesaid discussion, it stands proved that
accused persons causing hurt to PW9 Kamal, hence they are
guilty under Section 323 IPC.
32. Further both the accused persons have been charged
under Section 304/34 IPC for committing culpable homicide not
amounting to murder by causing the death of Ram Kumar with
brick blows in his abdomen and head.
33. PW6 Naveen Saxena deposed that on 12.04.2015 at
about 10.30 pm when he was sitting near poultry farm, both the
accused persons came there and started abusing him. Thereafter
they started beating him. When his brother Kamal came to
rescue, even he was assaulted. Thereafter his deceased father
Ram Kumar intervened. Both the accused persons tried to flee,
his father followed them. Accused persons then hid themselves
behind the wall and hit his father in his abdomen, on his hands
and his head. Due to the impact he fell on the ground and was
later taken to the hospital. On 18.04.2015 Ram Kumar
succumbed to his injuries inflicted by the accused persons.
Digitally
34. PW9 Kamal Saxena reiterated the testimony of his POOJA
signed by
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
brother PW6 in all material particulars. 2025.07.23
14:14:20
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 24 of 37
FIR no.272/15
35. PW10 Naveen Sharma deposed that both the
accused persons inflicted injuries in the stomach, head and other
body parts of deceased Ram Kumar Saxena.
36. All these witnesses were cross-examined. The fact
of altercation between PW6 Naveen Saxena, PW9 Kamal Saxena
and both the accused persons is not disputed.
37. It is suggested to PW6 Naveen Saxena by defence
counsel that his father was suffering from lung disease and was
on regular medication and also that he trespassed into the house
of the accused and that his father fell down on his own on the
road while they were all trying to escape. All these suggestions
given by the counsel for the accused persons were denied by the
witness.
38. Further it is suggested to PW9 Kamal Saxena that
his father as suffering from disease in chest and stomach or that
due to the fall his father expired. The aforesaid suggestions were
denied by the witness.
39. PW10 admitted the story of the prosecution in his
examination in chief, however resiled from his statement during
his cross-examination but admitted that he had forgiven the
accused persons.
40. His testimony cannot be disregarded completely as
he has admitted he had forgiven the accused, meaning thereby
Digitally
the accused had committed some wrong for which he had signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
forgiven them. Only for the reason that the Ld. Addl. PP has re- 2025.07.23
14:14:50
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 25 of 37
FIR no.272/15
examined the said witness does not mean his testimony which
supports the story of prosecution should be disregarded
altogether.
41. Reliance is being placed on Paramjeet Singh alias
Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2010) 10 SCC 439 , it was held
as under:-
“16. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance
of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross-examine
the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the
evidence of the witness. However, the court has to be very
careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes different statements
at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to
be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out
whether any weight should be attached to it. The court should be
slow to act on the testimony of such a witness; normally, it
should look for corroboration to his testimony. (Vide State of
Rajasthan v. Bhawani (2003) 7 SCC 291.)”
42. It would also be relevant to discern the testimony of
the doctors. PW2 Dr. Bina proved the injuries sustained by
deceased Ram Kumar. She denied the suggestion of defence
counsel that deceased Ram Kumar had any breathing difficulty.
43. Dr. Manish Wadhawan PW5 conducted the
postmortem of deceased Ram Kumar. He too proved the injuries
sustained by Ram Kumar. He also deposed “Cause of death is
due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of heptic injury due to blunt Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
force/object diverted upon abdomen. Heptic injury is sufficient to TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:15:04
+0530
cause death in ordinary course of nature.”
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 26 of 37
FIR no.272/15
44. He further opined that on examining the weapon of
offence, injuries sustained by Ram Kumar were possible with the
brick pieces.
45. Prosecution through the testimony of PW6, PW9,
PW10, PW2 and PW5 has been able to prove that cause of death
of Ram Kumar was injuries inflicted on his body with a blunt
object such as brick and that Ram Kumar was not suffering from
any lung disease which could have been a probable cause of his
death.
46. Presence of the accused persons at the place of
occurrence on the alleged day and time of incident is not denied.
Two injured/eye witnesses have categorically deposed against the
accused persons and their testimony is found to be reliable and
trustworthy. Their testimony could not be impeached despite
extensive cross-examination. No motive for false implication has
been brought on record.
47. PW6 Naveen and PW9 Kamal are both injured and
eye witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court through its various
pronouncements has laid down guidelines as to how the
testimony of injured eye witness is to be scrutinized. At this stage
it would be relevant to discuss the credibility of testimony of
injured witness.
48. In Mukesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
reported as AIR 2017 SC 2161 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Digitally
signed by
observed that: “The depositions of an injured witness should be POOJA
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
relied upon, unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his
14:15:17
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 27 of 37
FIR no.272/15
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies,
for the reason that his presence on the same stands established in
the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the
said incident.”
49. In Maqsoodan Vs. State of UP reported as (1983) 1
SCC 218 the Hon’ble Supreme court observed that: “Presence of
an injured witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot
be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of the
incident and they should normally be not disbelieved.”
50. The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again
determined the parameters on the basis of which the
credibility/truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the
case of Bankey Lal Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC
2233 it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “In a case
where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in
all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with
care.” Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs State of UP
reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court: “Whether the witness should be or should not be
believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is
therefore evident that Eye witnesses’ account would require a
careful independent assessment and evaluation for their
credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any
other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole
touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be
tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of Digitally
signed by
the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the
14:15:34
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 28 of 37
FIR no.272/15
‘credit’ of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box;
their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such
evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a
cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs State reported in AIR
2003 SC 2978).”
51. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of
the present case, it is therefore necessary for this court to first
determine whether testimonies of material witnesses are reliable
and truthful.
52. Reverting back to the facts of the present case it
would be revealed and on the contrary, both the sons of Ram
Avtar i.e. PW6 Naveen and PW9 Kamal were consistent in their
testimony. The accused persons have tried to take contradictory
defences in order to find a lee way to escape the liability.
53. The first defence taken by the accused persons is
that the deceased had previous lung and stomach ailment which
was the cause of his death. The said defence is falsified with the
statement of the doctors.
54. The next defence taken is that the deceased while
running fell down on the bricks and sustained injuries. This
defence too is not plausible in view of the report of Dr. Munish
PW5 where he stated that the cause of death was due to
hemorrhagic shock due to blunt force/object diverted upon
Digitally
abdomen. No suggestion is given to the doctor that injury was
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
due to fall on the bricks as stated by the accused persons. 14:15:45
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 29 of 37
FIR no.272/15
55. An altogether new defence is taken by the accused
persons in their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC
where they stated that they were assaulted by Naveen and Kamal
on restraining them from consuming drugs, alcohol and gambling
near their house and that Raj Kumar died a natural death.
56. In so far as the said defence is concerned, same is
taken for the first time during recording their statement. Secondly
postmortem report of Ram Kumar clearly states the cause of
death which is not natural.
57. Accused persons have been charged under Section
304/34 IPC. It would first be relevant to decide whether the
accused persons are held liable under Section 304 part (i) or part
(ii).
58. In order to bring home the charge under Section 304
part (i) IPC prosecution is required to prove that the death is
caused with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death and in order to prove offence
under Section 304 part (ii) only the knowledge and not the
intention to cause death is a prerequisite.
59. On reverting to the facts of the present case it would
be revealed to note that a quarrel ensued between both the parties
without any provocation or pre-mediation. As per PW6 and PW9, Digitally
signed by
POOJA
both the accused persons hid behind the bushes and gave brick POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:16:42blows on the head, abdomen and hands of the deceased. +0530
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 30 of 37
FIR no.272/15
60. It is not alleged that both the accused persons came
prepared with weapons in order to cause death of deceased and
his sons. They gave brick blows without any intention to cause
death. In case the accused persons intended to cause death of the
deceased they would have come armed with the objects/weapon
and would have targeted the deceased at the first instance and not
his sons. Hence the accused persons cannot be held liable under
Section 304 part (i) IPC.
61. In order to decide whether the accused persons can
be held liable under Section 304 part (ii) IPC it would be
pertinent to scrutinize the facts minutely.
62. According to the law, anyone found guilty of an act
that results in death, an act that is undertaken with the intent to
cause death or a physical injury that “is likely to result in death”
faces a sentence of up to ten years in jail, a fine, or both.
63. Additionally, it must be proven that the act was
carried out knowing it would likely result in death but with no
desire to do so or any bodily harm that would result in doing so.
64. Though as discussed in the preceding paragraphs
intention to kill cannot be attributed to the accused persons
however knowledge to cause death is explicit from the fact that
deliberately brick blows were targeted on the delicate parts of the
body such as head and abdomen. The accused persons had Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
complete knowledge that inflicted injuries on the said portion to 2025.07.23
14:16:53
+0530an old man would be sufficient to cause his death.
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 31 of 37
FIR no.272/15
65. MLC of the deceased would show that he received
multiple injuries on his hands, abdomen and head and it is opined
by Dr. Munish PW5 that the injuries sustained by the deceased
were the cause of his death.
66. In view of the facts as brought on record accused
persons are held liable under Section 304 part (ii) IPC. Reliance
is being placed upon Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab (1981) 4
SCC 245, wherein it has been held that:
“The accused, without any prior enmity or pre-
meditation, on a short quarrel gave a single blow with a dagger
which later proved to be fatal. This Court observed that since
there was no pre-meditation, Part 3 of section 300 of the Indian
Penal Code could not be attracted because it cannot be said that
the accused intended to inflict that particular injury which was
ultimately found to have been inflicted. In the facts and
circumstances of that case, the conviction of the accused was
altered from section 302 to that under section 304 Part II IPC and
the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
five years.”
67. Through the testimony of its witnesses prosecution
has been able to prove on record that death of Ram Kumar was
caused due to injuries inflicted by accused persons with bricks in
the abdomen, head and hands. Though the intention to kill could
not be proved, however the manner with which the injuries have
been inflicted it is clear that the accused persons had requisite
knowledge that the injuries so caused were sufficient to cause Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence offence under TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:17:04
+0530Section 304 part (ii) stands proved.
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 32 of 37
FIR no.272/15
68. Further accused persons have been charged under
Section 308/34 IPC for causing head injuries to PW6 Naveen
Saxena with bricks. PW6 deposed that on 12.04.2015 accused
Suresh @ Pichki in an inebriated state alongwith his brother
Naresh started abusing and beating him. Accused Suresh hit him
on his head. A general suggestion has been given to the aforesaid
witness that they have been falsely implicated, however there is
no specific denial with respect to causing head injury to PW6 by
the accused persons.
69. PW9 Kamal Saxena also testified that both the
accused persons gave beatings to his brother with bricks. Even to
this witness there is no specific suggestion denying injuries being
inflicted to PW6 Naveen Saxena by the accused persons.
70. PW10 Naveen Sharma too in his examination in
chief deposed that both the accused persons in drunken condition
gave brick blows to Naveen and Kamal. Though this witness
denied the said fact in his cross-examination, however how his
testimony is required to be scrutinized has already been discussed
in the preceding paragraphs.
71. Injury sustained by PW6 Naveen as deposed by him
is corroborated with the MLC Ex.PW2/B. PW2 Dr. Bina deposed
that “On the same, I also examined Naveen, 18 years old male.
He has injury over left side of parietal region approximately 2 cm
x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
72. There is no cross-examination on the aspect of
Digitally
signed by
injury sustained by PW6 Naveen as stated in the MLC. As opined POOJA
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:17:15
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 33 of 37
FIR no.272/15
in the MLC the injury sustained was simple. The gravity of the
injury can also be inferred from the fact that Naveen was the one
who took his father to hospital and after being provided with
medical aid he was fit to look after his father.
73. In his cross-examination he admitted that he
attended his father in the hospital. Hence it is proved that the
injury sustained by PW6 was simple, moreover the brick lying on
the road was used to inflict injuries and no other weapon was
used to hit Naveen. Accused persons did not have any other
weapons before hand.
74. Pre requisite to prove section 308 IPC is intention or
knowledge and the injuries caused are such as are likely to cause
death.
75. The intention or knowledge on the part of accused is
to be assessed from the manner in which the injuries were
caused, the nature of injuries and the specific part of the body
where such injuries were sustained. Hence it is difficult to hold
that accused had intention or knowledge to inflict said injury
which was sufficient to cause death and hold him guilty of
murder.
76. In the instant case brick lying on the road was used
to hit the injured. There was no intention to kill the victim which
is clear from hte nature of injury. MLC would show that after
being provided first-aid, the victim was able to take care of his Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
father.
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:17:28
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 34 of 37
FIR no.272/15
77. Accordingly I am of the considered opinion that
offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. However it is
proved on record that injury was caused by the accused at the
part of the body as deposed by PW6 Naveen Saxena. Testimony
of PW6 Naveen Saxena alongwith PW9 Kamal is found to be
credible and trustworthy, they have deposed that injury was
inflicted with bricks by accused persons.
78. Although, prosecution has failed to prove that
offence under Section 308 IPC is made out but in view of Section
222 CrPC when offence proved is included in the offence
charged, even if the charged offence is not proved the same
would not entail acquittal in case the offence and facts are proved
which reduce it to a minor offence. Section is reproduced herein
under:
222. When offence proved included in offence charged- (1)When
a person is charged with an offence consisting of several
particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a
complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the
remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the
minor offence, though he was not charged with it.(2)When a
person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which
reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor
offence, although he is not charged with it.(3)When a person is
charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to
commit such offence although the attempt is not separately
charged.(4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWARfor the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:17:57
+0530have not been satisfied.”
SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 35 of 37
FIR no.272/15
79. Offence under Section 323 IPC is a minor offence
included within Section 308 IPC. Section 323 reproduced herein
under:
“Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both.”
80. In view of the law as laid down by Apex Court it is
settled law that for the purpose of Section 323 IPC the nature of
injury is critical to determine the liability of the offender. It is
also required to be proved that the offence was committed
voluntarily with an intention to cause hurt.
81. It has been proved in the preceding paragraphs that
the accused persons used bricks lying on road to cause injury to
complainant PW6. Further it is also proved on record that
accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to the injured PW6
Naveen and the injuries sustained by him in the MLC prove the
same.
82. Keeping in mind the aforesaid fact in my considered
opinion offence under Section 323 IPC stands proved.
Conclusion:
83. In view of the aforesaid discussion, prosecution
succeeded in proving the guilt of accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt under Section 323/34 IPC for causing hurt to Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
PW9 Kamal and Section 323/34 for causing hurt to PW6 Naveen
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:18:08
+0530SC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 36 of 37
FIR no.272/15
and also under Section 304 (ii)/34 IPC.
84. In view of the aforesaid findings accused persons
Suresh @ Pichki and Naresh are convicted for commission of
offence under Section 323/34 IPC for causing hurt to PW9
Kamal and Section 323/34 for causing hurt to PW6 Naveen and
also under Section 304 part (ii)/34 IPC. Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.07.23
14:18:17
+0530Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR)
on 23.07.2025 ASJ-01(FTC) West District,
Tis Hazari Court, DelhiSC No. 56321/16 State. Vs. Suresh @ Pichki & Anr. Page : 37 of 37
FIR no.272/15
[ad_2]
Source link