Delhi District Court
State vs Tarkeshwar Pandey on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 71837/2016
CNR No. -: DLWT020095962015
FIR No. -: 96/2015
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 323/509/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
(1) TARKESHWAR PANDEY
S/o Rameshwar Pandey
R/o H.No. 52/66, Gali No. 19,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
(2) RAJESHWAR PANDEY
S/o Rameshwar Pandey
R/o H.No. 52/66, Gali No. 19,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
(3) ANNU DEVI
S/o Rajeshwar Pandey
R/o H.No. 52/66, Gali No. 19,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
.... Accused Persons
1. Name of Complainant :- Meenu
2. Name of Accused :- (1) Tarkeshwar Pandey
Persons (2) Rajeshwar Pandey
(3) Annu Devi
3. Offence complained of :- 323/509/34 IPC
or proved
4. Plea of accused persons :- Not Guilty
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:55:11 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 1 of 42
5. Date of Commission of :- 07.05.2014
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 13.10.2015
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 02.02.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 02.04.2026
9. Final Order :- (1) Tarkeshwar Pandey:
Acquitted
(2) Rajeshwar Pandey:
Acquitted
(3) Annu Devi:
Acquitted
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State assisted
by Sh. Ajay Bharti, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. J.A. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the accused
persons.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the
accused persons is that the complainant has filed an application
under 156 (3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter, “CrPC“) alleging that the complainant, a helpless girl,
resides with her mother, brother, bhabhi, and niece at 52/66, First
Floor, Gali No. 19, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi occupying the
first floor of the house for over 30 years under distressful
conditions, while the accused–namely her father (Tarkeshwar
Pandey i.e., accused no. 1), uncle (Rajeshwar Pandey i.e., accused
no. 2), and aunty (Annu Devi i.e., accused no. 3) — Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02
16:55:21 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 2 of 42
reside on the ground floor and live a comparatively lavish life. It is
further alleged that the accused persons frequently restricted
access to the terrace, leading to repeated arguments, abuses, and
harassment of the complainant and her mother. It is further alleged
that accused No. 1 allegedly never showed affection to the
complainant, her mother, or siblings, accusing the mother of
infidelity and opposing her stay in Delhi. She has further alleged
that after the family shifted to Delhi, all accused allegedly
subjected the complainant, her mother, and siblings to continuous
abuse, harassment, and physical violence as part of a conspiracy to
force them to vacate the house and return to their native place. It is
further alleged that the accused persons allegedly used filthy and
defamatory language, calling the complainant and her mother
prostitutes and whenever the mother protested, accused Nos. 1 and
2 allegedly beat her mercilessly, even assaulting neighbours who
intervened, and on one occasion forcibly evicted the complainant’s
brother after beating him.
1.1. It is further alleged that due to continued atrocities,
the complainant and her mother filed cases under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter
“DV Act“) and Section 125 CrPC, which are pending. The
complainant has further alleged that after learning of these cases,
the accused persons allegedly intensified their harassment and
accused No. 1 allegedly struck the complainant with a wooden
stick while she was talking with friends near the house. It is further
alleged that when police were called via 100 number, accused Nos.
1 and 2 fled and accused No. 3 shut the house; the PCR arrived but
allegedly took no action. It is further alleged that during court
proceedings, permission was granted to install a sub-meter for Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL 16:55:27
Date: 2026.04.02
+0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 3 of 42
electricity for the complainant’s portion, which allegedly led the
accused to repeatedly disconnect electricity by switching off the
main supply from the ground floor and when questioned, accused
No. 3 allegedly abused the complainant and her mother, while
accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly assaulted the complainant with
slaps and sticks. It is further alleged that despite multiple calls to
the police, no effective action was allegedly taken.
1.2. Complainant has further alleged that on 07.05.2014,
after attending court proceedings, the complainant and her mother
returned home to find the electricity disconnected by accused No.
3, who allegedly abused the complainant and threatened her to
withdraw the case, claiming influence with higher authorities. It is
further alleged that on evening of 07.05.2014 at around 06:00-
06:30 PM, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 allegedly abused the
complainant in filthy language; accused No. 2 slapped her,
accused No. 3 called her prostitute, and accused No. 1 allegedly
threw boiling water from a “pateela” at her, causing serious injury
to her hand. It is further alleged that the complainant rushed to call
her mother from upstairs and called police by calling 100 no. and
the PCR took the complainant to Jeewanmala Hospital, Rohtak
Road, where MLC No. 84/14 was prepared and her statement
recorded vide DD No. 46B. It is further alleged that accused No. 1
was taken to the police station but allegedly released shortly
thereafter without proper action and subsequently, the accused
persons allegedly continued abusing and manhandling the
complainant, prompting complaints to the local police and the
DCP. The complainant alleges that the accused persons
intentionally committed offences of hurt, assault, molestation,
criminal intimidation, and threats, creating a constant
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:55:34 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 4 of 42
apprehension of further harm.
1.3. As such it is alleged that the accused persons
namely Tarkeshwar Pandey, Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi
have committed the offences punishable under sections
323/509/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
as IPC) and FIR was registered pursuant to order dated 30.01.2015
passed by the then Ld. ACMM (West), THC, Delhi. Thereafter, a
chargesheet was filed against the accused persons after completion
of investigation on 13.10.2015 for the offences punishable U/s
323/509/34 of IPC.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. Accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey,
Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi entered appearance before this
court and in terms of section 207 CrPC, the accused persons were
supplied the copy of the chargesheet as well as documents relied
upon in the same.
3. On a finding a prima facie case against the accused
persons, a charge was framed for the offences punishable U/s
323/34 of IPC against the accused persons namely Tarkeshwar
Pandey, Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi on 09.10.2017. The
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral
and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt: –
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW1 :- Meenu (Complainant)
PW2 :- Umrawati Devi (Mother of complainant)
PW3 :- W/ASI Kaushalya (Accompanied IO to the
ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
spot)
PANGHAL Date:
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 5 of 42
2026.04.02
16:55:53 +0530
PW4 :- ASI Mukesh (Duty Officer)
PW5 :- ASI Ashok Kumar (Accompanied IO to the
spot)
PW6 :- Insp. Pradeep Kumar (Attended PCR call)
PW7 :- Retd. SI Jai Parkash (IO)DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW1/A :- Copy of complaint filed by complainant to
DCP through speed post along with postal
receipts
Ex.PW1/B :- Application U/s 156 (3) CrPC filed by the
complainant.
Ex. PW 1/C :- Statement of complainant before Ld.
Magistrate
Mark A :- Complaint dated 30.04.2014 filed by
complainant to SHO concerned
Ex. PW :- Order dated 07.05.2014 passed by Ms.
2/DA (Colly) Saumya Chauhan, Ld. MM along with
reply of IO
Ex. PW3/A :- Arrest memo of accused Annu Devi
Ex. PW3/B :- Personal search memo of accused Annu
Devi
Ex. PW4/A :- Endorsement on rukka
Ex. PW4/B :- FIR No. 96/15 PS Anand Parbat
Ex. PW4/C :- Certificate U/s 65B of The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (hereinafter “IEA”/ “Evidence
Act“)
Ex. PW5/A :- Arrest memo of accused Tarkeshwar
Pandey
Ex. PW5/B :- Arrest memo of accused Rajeshwar Pandey
Ex. PW5/C :- Personal search memo of accused
Tarkeshwar Pandey
Ex. PW5/D :- Personal search memo of accused
Rajeshwar Pandey
Mark A :- Statement of complainant recorded by PW6
Mark B :- DD No. 46 B dt. 08.05.2014
Ex. PW7/A :- Endorsement made by IO on complaint
given by complainant
Ex. PW7/B :- Site Plan
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:55:59 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 6 of 42
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC)
Ex. AD-1 :- Statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC
Ex. AD-2 :- MLC No. 84/2014 dated 07.05.2014 of
complainant
5. Ms. Meenu (PW-1) is the complainant in the present
case. She took the stand to depose that on 05.07.2014, the
electricity connection of her house no. 52/66, First Floor, Gali No.
19, Nayi Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi was cut by the accused
persons and she requested accused persons to connect their
electricity with electric meter but they refused to do so. PW1
further deposed that one case of domestic violence was pending
against the accused persons which was filed by her mother and in
that case, Ld. Magistrate has ordered that if the accused persons
cut the electricity connection, click the photographs. PW1 further
deposed that thereafter, as per the instructions of Ld. Magistrate,
on the abovesaid date, she went downstairs to click photographs of
the sub-meter which is installed on the ground floor of the
abovesaid house and when she was clicking the photographs from
her mobile phone, accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey
and Rajeshwar Pandey came there and snatched her mobile phone
and threw it on the wall, due to which her mobile phone broke.
PW1 further deposed that thereafter, she asked accused persons
namely Tarkeshwar Pandey and Rajeshwar Pandey as to why they
had broken her phone and thereafter, her father went inside. PW1
further deposed that on hearing her voice, accused Annu Devi
came out from her room and hold her hairs from behind and
thereafter accused Rajeshwar Pandey started slapping her. PW1
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02
16:56:05 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 7 of 42
further deposed that both accused persons Rajeshwar Pandey and
Annu Devi tried to press her neck and in the meantime, accused
Tarkeshwar Pandey came along with a big bowl containing hot
water and threw hot water upon her, due to which she sustained
burn injuries on her right hand. PW1 further deposed that she
started screaming and thereafter, her mother came downstairs and
all the accused persons started beating her mother also. PW1
further deposed that thereafter, she called at number 100 from the
mobile phone of her mother and police officials came at the spot
and took her to Jeewanmala Hospital for medical examination.
PW1 further deposed that she was treated at Jeewanmala Hospital
and after getting treatment, she returned back to her house. PW1
further deposed that police officials recorded her statement but did
not take any action. PW1 further deposed that she went to police
station to give her complaint time and again but police officials
refused to take her complaint and also did not take any action
against accused persons. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, she
filed a complaint before DCP concerned via speed post but no
action was taken on the said complaint also.
5.1. PW1 further deposed that copy of the complaint to
DCP which was filed by her through speed post is Ex. PW1/A
along with postal receipts. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, no
action was taken by the police official and finding no other option,
she filed an application before the Court for registration of FIR
through her counsel. PW1 further deposed that while the
application was pending before the Court, police official registered
the FIR on the basis of her application u/s 156(3) Ex. PW1/B. PW1
further deposed that thereafter, the present FIR was registered on
the direction of the Court and she had shown the place of incident
ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:56:13 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 8 of 42
to the police official, who prepared the site plan. PW1 further
deposed that later on, during investigation IO asked her to come at
Tis Hazari Court for giving statement before Ld. Magistrate and on
23.02.2015, she went to Tis Hazari Court for giving my statement
before Ld. Magistrate, who recorded her statement Ex. PW1/C.
PW1 further deposed that initially, she had filed a complaint to the
concerned SHO dated 30.04.2014 Mark A. The witness has
correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
5.2. In cross-examination, Ms. Meenu (PW 1) has
admitted the fact that her mother had filed a case of domestic
violence against the accused persons. She further admitted the fact
that the said case is sub judice. PW1 further admitted the fact that
her mother had filed an application before the Court with regard to
tempering of electricity meter by accused persons. PW1 further
deposed that she does not remember as to whether the Court has
directed one police official to visit and verify whether electricity
meter was functional or not. PW1 further deposed that she does not
know whether any police official filed any reply before the Court
or not. She further deposed that she does not know whether the
application filed by her mother was dismissed by the Court or not.
PW1 further admitted the fact that the place of incident is a
residential area. PW1 further deposed that no public person has
gathered outside her house at the time of the incident. PW1 further
deposed that she had not given the broken phone to the police
officials and when she got the phone repaired, the photographs
were not in the phone. PW1 further deposed that she did not
handover the photographs of the electricity meter to the police
officials as her phone was broken by the accused persons
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02
16:56:19 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 9 of 42
Tarkeshwar and Rajeshwar. PW1 denied the suggestion neither the
accused persons had broken her phone nor they have given any
beatings to her. PW1 further deposed that the incident happened in
the year 2014 and she does not remember whether she had given
any complaint to the DCP or not. PW1 further deposed that her
statement was recorded before the Ld. Judge also and she does not
remember whether she had stated the fact that when she was
clicking the photographs from her mobile phone, accused persons
namely Tarkeshwar and Rajeshwar came there and snatched her
mobile phone and threw it on the wall and due to which her mobile
phone broke, in her statement before the Ld. Judge. PW1 further
deposed that she is illiterate and does not know how to read and
write.
5.3. PW1 further admitted the fact that she does not
know what statement of her was recorded by the police officials
and by the Ld. Judge. She further deposed that she does not
remember know whether the person who had written her
compliant to DCP Ex. PW 1/A, read over the same to her or not.
PW1 further deposed that she does not know what was written in
her complaint Ex. PW 1/B, before the Judge. PW1 denied the
suggestion that she does not know what are the contents of her
complaint and she just simply signed the same at the instance of
her mother. PW1 further admitted the fact that the litigation is
pending between her mother and the present accused persons
including the case for maintenance. PW1 further deposed that the
incident had taken place on the day when she along with her
mother attending the Court proceedings and thereafter, went to
their house. PW1 further deposed that the police officials reached
at the spot after some time of her making call. PW1 further ANKUR PANGHAL
Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.02 16:56:27 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 10 of 42
deposed that she had stated in her statement U/s 164 CrPC the fact
that both the accused persons namely Rajeshwar and Annu Devi
tried to press her neck. PW1 was confronted with the statement Ex.
PW 1/C, where it was found to be not so recorded. PW1 further
denied the suggestion that no such incident has ever taken place or
that she has falsely implicated the accused persons at the behest of
her mother. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the present
case has been filed because her mother’s application was
dismissed by the Court with regard to tempering of meter. PW1
further denied the suggestion that she had not shown the place of
incident to the police officials. She further denied the suggestion
that police officials had not prepared the site plan at her instance.
PW1 admitted the fact that document Ex. PW 7/B (site plan) does
not bear her signature. PW1 further denied the suggestion that Ex.
PW7/B does not bear my signature as the same was not prepared in
her presence or at her instance. PW1 further denied the suggestion
that neither the accused had given any beating to her or her mother
nor they had thrown the boiling water upon her. The witness
further denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
6. Umrawati Devi (PW 2) is the mother of complainant,
who took the stand to depose that she does not remember the date,
month and year. PW2 further deposed that one case was pending
between accused persons and her. PW2 further deposed that
accused persons used to cut the electricity connection of her house
and in the case which was pending between accused persons and
her, they had visited the court and apprised all the facts. PW2
further deposed that thereafter, Ld. Magistrate asked them to click
the photographs of the meter, if the accused persons cut their
electricity connection. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, as per
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:56:35 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 11 of 42
the instructions of Ld. Magistrate, one day accused persons cut
their electricity connection and her daughter went downstairs to
click the photographs of the meter which was installed on the
ground floor of their house. PW2 further deposed that she was
preparing food in her house and she heard shouting noise of her
daughter and when she went downstairs to see what had happened
to her daughter. PW2 further deposed that her daughter was crying
and there was burn injuries on her right hand. PW2 further deposed
that her daughter told her that accused persons gave beatings to her
and also abused her and accused Tarkeshwar Pandey brought a big
bowl containing hot water and threw hot water upon her daughter,
due to which she sustained burn injuries on her right hand. PW2
further deposed that accused persons Annu Devi, Rajeshwar
Pandey and Tarkeshwar Pandey also gave beatings to her. PW2
further deposed that a call was made at number 100, police
officials reached at the spot and took her daughter to Jeevan Mala
Hospital. PW2 further deposed that she also accompanied her
daughter to Jeevan Mala Hospital and after getting treatment, they
both returned back to their house. PW2 further deposed that she
and her daughter had also filed a complaint against the accused
persons. PW2 further deposed that police officials directed them to
file a case in Tis Hazari Court. PW2 further deposed that police
officials did not take any action. PW2 further deposed that
thereafter, they filed a case in Tis Hazari Court. PW2 further
deposed that she is illiterate and she cannot read and write. PW2
further deposed that she can only sign. The witness has correctly
identified accused persons namely Tarkeshwar Pandey and Annu
Devi, who were present in court and the identity of accused
Rajeshwar Pandey was not disputed by the defence counsel. Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:56:41 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 12 of 42
6.1. In cross-examination, Umrawati Devi (PW 2) has
admitted the fact that the place of incident is a residential area. She
has further deposed that nobody has come at the place where the
incident happened. PW2 further deposed that police officials had
reached the spot when she made call at number 100 and nobody
had told police about the incident. PW2 further admitted the fact
that a domestic violence case was pending between her and the
accused persons. PW2 further deposed that she had filed an
application before the Court with regard to tampering of electricity
meter by accused persons. She further admitted the fact that Ld.
Magistrate had directed one police official to visit and verify
whether electricity meter was functional or not and thereafter
police official visited their house and found that electricity meter
was not working. PW2 further deposed that she does not remember
whether said police officials had filed any reply / report before the
concerned Ld. Magistrate. PW2 denied the suggestion that police
official had filed reply/report with regard to his visit to the place
where the electricity meters were installed. She further denied the
suggestion that concerned Ld. Magistrate had dismissed the
application with regard to tampering of electricity meter after
seeing the reply/report of police official. The witness was shown
order dated 07.05.2014 passed by Ld. MM Ms. Saumya Chauhan
and on seeing the order witness submitted that she cannot read the
order as she is illiterate. Thereafter, the said order was read over to
the witness and upon hearing the contents of the above order,
witness submitted that she does not remember whether the said
above order was passed or not. The order dated 07.05.2014 along
with the reply of the IO is Ex.PW2/DA (Colly). PW2 further
deposed that the property bearing No. 52/66 belongs to her father-
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:56:48 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 13 of 42
in-law. PW2 denied the suggestion that the abovesaid property
belongs to her brother-in-law and his wife Annu Devi and they are
the registered owner of said property. She further deposed that she
does not remember whether the day of incident i.e., the day on
which the accused persons gave beatings to her daughter and threw
boiling water on her daughter and the day on which the application
with regard to tampering of meter was dismissed was the same day
or not. PW2 further admitted that fact that the facts regarding the
beating and throwing of boiling water was told to her by my
daughter. She further denied the suggestion that they had filed a
false case against the accused persons as their application before
with regard to tampering of meter was dismissed. PW2 further
denied the suggestion that they had filed false case against accused
persons in order to trap them in multiple litigations. She further
denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely. PW2 also
denied the suggestion that they had fabricated a false and
concocted story in order to implicate accused persons in this false
case.
7. W/ASI Kaushalya (PW 3) was examined in chief on
12.05.2022 wherein he sated on oath that on 04.04.2015, she was
posted at PS Anand Parbat as HC and she along with Ct. Ashok
and SI Jai Prakash went to Nai Basti i.e., H.No. 52/66, Gali No. 19,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi where they met accused Annu
Devi. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, IO arrested accused
Annu Devi vide arrest memo Ex.PW-3/A and she was also
personally searched by her vide personal search memo PW-3/B.
PW3 further deposed that accused Annu Devi was released on bail
as the offence was bailable and in this regard IO recorded her Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02
16:56:54 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 14 of 42
statement. The witness has correctly identified accused Annu Devi
present in Court.
7.1. In cross-examination, W/ASI Kaushalya (PW 3) has
deposed that IO had not enquired from any neighbour with regard
to this case in her presence. PW3 admitted the fact no public
person had signed the arrest memo of accused Annu Devi as a
witness. She also admitted the fact that document Ex.PW-3/A does
not bear signature of Ct. Ashok. PW3 further deposed that on that
day she was on duty from 02:00 PM to 08:00 PM and she had made
departure entry before leaving the PS. She further deposed that she
does not know whether IO had place said DD entry on the file or
not. PW3 denied the suggestion that she was not the part
investigation at any point of time. PW3 also denied the suggestion
that she is deposing falsely.
8. ASI Mukesh (PW 4) took the stand to depose that on
04.02.2015, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as HC and on that
day, SI Jai Prakash handed over rukka to him for registration of
FIR. PW4 further deposed that accordingly, he made endorsement
on the rukka Ex. PW4/A and thereafter, the rukka was given to the
typewriter for registration of FIR Ex. PW4/B along with certificate
u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/C.8.1. ASI Mukesh (PW 4) was cross-examined by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has denied the
suggestion that the FIR was anti-dated and anti-timed.
9. ASI Ashok Kumar (PW 5) took the stand to depose
that on 04.04.2015, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as constable
and on that day, he was present on the PS. PW5 further deposed
that at the request of IO, he joined the investigation in the present
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:57:02 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 15 of 42
case and he along with W/HC Kaushalya and SI Jai Parkash went
to the house of the accused person which was situated at 52/66 Gali
no. 19, New Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi. PW5 further deposed that
accused persons were found present in the house and thereafter,
accused persons were arrested and personally searched vide memo
Ex. PWS/A to Ex. PW5/D and Ex. PW3/A & Ex. PW3/B. PW5
further deposed that in this regard IO recorded his statement. The
witness correctly identified all accused persons in the Court.
9.1. ASI Ashok Kumar (PW 5) was cross-examined by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has deposed
that he does not remember whether public persons had gathered
outside the house of accused persons when we visited the house.
PW5 further deposed that the place from where the accused
persons were arrested is thickly public areas. PW5 further deposed
that he does not remember whether IO had asked any public person
to join the investigation. PW5 further deposed that he also does not
remember at what time the surety reached at the house of the
accused, however, the bail bonds were executed in his presence.
PW5 further deposed that he is not aware whether any other
litigation is pending between the accused persons and the
complainant. PW5 further deposed that the information about the
arrest of the accused persons were given to mother of complainant.
PW5 denied the suggestion that he was not part of investigation in
the present case. PW5 further denied the suggestion that IO
obtained his signatures on the arrest memo in the police station
later on. PW5 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:57:08 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 16 of 42
10. Insp. Pardeep Kumar (PW 6) took the stand to depose
that on the intervening night of 07/08 May 2014, he was posted as
SI at PS Anand Parbat and on that day, he was on night emergency
duty. PW6 further deposed that DD No. 28 A regarding quarrel
was marked to him for investigation. PW6 further deposed that
thereafter he went to the spot i.e., 52/66, Gali No. 19, Nai Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi, where he came to know that the injured has
been taken to hospital by PCR. PW6 further deposed that
thereafter he went to Jeewan Mala Hospital and collected the MLC
of injured Ms. Meenu Pandey. PW6 further deposed that as per
MLC, the nature of injury was opined as simple. PW6 further
deposed that he came to know that the injured has left the hospital.
PW6 further deposed that thereafter he went to the house of the
injured and recorded her statement Mark A. PW6 further deposed
that thereafter he lodged DD No. 46 B dt. 08.05.2014 Mark B
based on the statement of the injured and the MLC.
10.1. Insp. Pardeep Kumar (PW 6) was cross-examined by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has admitted
the fact that the spot is a residential area. PW6 further deposed that
he had not searched for the eye witness at the spot. PW6 further
deposed that he only recorded the statement of complainant only
and none else. PW6 further deposed that he had not joined any
independent public person at the time of recording of statement of
complainant Meenu Pandey. He denied the suggestion that he
neither visited the spot nor recorded the statement of complainant.
PW6 further denied the suggestion that all the writing work was
done at the police station. PW6 also denied the suggestion that he
had not conducted fair investigation in the present case. Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:57:14 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 17 of 42
11. Retd. SI Jai Parkash (PW 7) took the stand to depose
that on 04.02.2015 he was posted as SI at PS Anand Parbat and on
that day, the complaint Ex. PW-1/B was marked to him and
thereafter he had made endorsement Ex. PW 7/A on the complaint
and got the FIR registered. PW7 further deposed that during
investigation, on 23.02.2015, he got recorded the statement U/s
164 CrPC of complainant Meenu Pandey before Ld. MM. PW7
further deposed that he also prepared site plan Ex. PW7/B on the
same day at the instance of complainant. PW7 further deposed that
he recorded supplementary statement of the injured/complainant
as well as statement of mother of complainant. PW7 further
deposed that on 04.04.2015, he along with Ashok & HC
Kaushalya went to the house of accused persons and they found all
the accused persons present in the house. PW7 further deposed that
thereafter all the accused persons were arrested and personally
searched vide memo already Ex. PW-5/A to Ex: PW-5/D and Ex.
PW-3/A & Ex. PW-3/B. PW7 further deposed that all accused
persons were released on police bail as the offence is bailable.
PW7 further deposed that thereafter he completed his investigation
and submitted the charge sheet before the Court. PW7 has
correctly identified accused Tarkeshwar Pandey in Court and the
identity of accused persons namely Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu
Devi was not disputed by the defence.
11.1. Retd. SI Jai Parkash (PW 7) was cross-examined by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has admitted
the fact that the spot is situated in a residential area. PW7 further
admitted the fact that several other persons were residing in the
concerned building and several people reside in the
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:57:28 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 18 of 42
neighbourhood. He further deposed that he did not record the
statement of all the people residing in the building and neighbour.
The witness, upon being questioned regarding that fact as to
whether he recorded the statement of the owner of the concerned
house, answered that the father, uncle & aunty of the complainant
are the owner of the house. PW7 further deposed that he has never
seen the documents relating to the ownership of the house. He
further deposed that accused No 1 is the father of the complainant
and accused No 2 & 3 are real uncle & aunty of the complainant.
PW7 further deposed that he does not know whether any
matrimonial or other cases are pending between the parties or not.
PW7 admitted the fact that he has not cited any independent
witness in the charge-sheet. PW7 further deposed that during the
investigation he did not come across any independent witness. He
voluntarily deposed that the FIR was registered after 6-7 months.
PW7 denied the suggestion that he is intentionally and deliberately
not admitting to the matrimonial cases and other cases pending
between the parties, though he is aware about this same. PW7
further deposed that he is not aware about the fact that on the date
of incident the parties had a court date in the DV Act, where an
application of the complainant was dismissed by the concerned
court. PW7 further denied the suggestion that he did not prepare
the site plan at the instance of complainant. PW7 further denied the
suggestion that the accused persons have been falsely implicated
in the present case. PW7 further denied the suggestion that he did
not investigate the case in fair and proper manner. PW7 further
denied the suggestion that entire investigation was conducted
while sitting in the PS. PW7 further denied the suggestion that he
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02
16:57:34 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 19 of 42
did not visit the spot. PW7 also denied the suggestion that he is
deposing falsely at the instance of complainant.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
12. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to
personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against them, the statements of accused persons were
recorded without oath on 06.12.2025 under section 313 Cr. PC.
They have stated that the IO has not conducted the investigation in
a proper and fair manner. They further stated that they are innocent
and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the
complainant and her mother, with whom matrimonial cases are
pending. They further stated that they do want to lead defence
evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state, who was
assisted by Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. counsel for the
accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful
consideration of the material appearing on record.
14. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the
ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has
argued that PW1/complainant is daughter of accused no. 1 and
niece of accused no. 2 and 3. It is further argued that matrimonial
dispute of father and mother of complainant is going on. She has
further argued that the complainant and accused persons are
staying in same premises but on different floors and the present
incident arose because of electricity connection and installation of
sub meter on the floor on which complainant is residing. It is
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:57:41 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 20 of 42
further argued that the accused persons used to harass
complainant, by cutting the electricity of floor of complainant and
the same thing happened on date of incident. She has further
argued that the complainant has, in her statement dated
07.05.2014, which was recorded at the time of filing of ATR, has
mentioned all the facts in detail, which fulfils all the ingredients of
present offence. It is further argued that the complainant has stated
all the facts in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC as well in her
testimony before the court. It is further argued that mens rea of
accused persons was to cause grievous hurt to the complainant and
they had motive to cause the same because of previous enmity. It is
further argued that the accused persons have admitted the
genuineness of MLC of complainant and the same reflects that
complainant suffered simple injuries. It is further argued that
presence of accused persons is not disputed at the time of incident.
Further, the other evidence on record has corroborated the version
of the eyewitness and the offences are proved beyond any doubt.
As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the
said offences.
15. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused persons has
argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. It is argued that the complainant has stated that
site plan was prepared at her instance but the same does not bear
her or her mother’s signatures. It is further argued that the arrest
memos or personal search memos of accused persons also does not
bear signatures of the complainant. It is further argued that no
independent witness has been cited by the prosecution despite the
place of incident being a residential area. It is further argued that
only two public witnesses have been cited by the prosecution i.e.,
ANKUR PANGHAL
Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.02 16:57:49 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 21 of 42
the complainant and her mother, who are interested witnesses. It is
further argued that the public witnesses are not reliable and there
are contradictions at every stage of investigation/inquiry/trial. It is
further argued that the injury caused to complainant is self-
inflicted. It is further argued that PW2 is not an eye witness and she
was told about the incident by the complainant. It is further argued
that the complainant has deposed that he she went downstairs to
take photographs but no phone was seized during the
investigation. It is further argued that IO has not made any efforts
to join public witnesses during investigation. It is further argued
that there is matrimonial dispute between accused no 1 and mother
of complainant and the present case has been filed to create
pressure upon accused persons. Ld. Counsel has submitted that
there are contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witnesses. It is
argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden casted
upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be acquitted for
the said offences.
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
16. The accused persons have been charged for the offences of
voluntarily causing hurt (S. 323 IPC). In order to bring home the
guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused
persons voluntarily caused simple hurt, as per Section 319 IPC, to
the victim. The twin conditions of prearranged plan and active
participation are to be proved in order to fasten vicarious liability
on the accused persons by virtue of Section 34 of the IPC.
17. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 319, 323 &
34 of IPC, which are as follows:
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02
16:57:56 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 22 of 42
“319. Hurt.–Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to
any person is said to cause hurt.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.–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
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention.–When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.”
18. In order to prove the offences punishable under section
323 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt,
the following mandatory ingredients, viz.,i. Hurt: The accused should have caused bodily
pain, disease or infirmity to any person;
ii. Voluntary act: The hurt should have been caused
voluntarily by the accused i.e., with the intention
or knowledge that the accused by his/her act will
cause hurt to any person; and
iii. Hurt not caused on provocation: The hurt must not
be caused by the accused on grave and sudden
provocation, so as to fall within the ambit of
section 334 IPC.
19. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general
rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and
wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint
liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability
is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating
from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in
furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts,
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:58:06 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 23 of 42
similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance
of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as
if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the
joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a
rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two
elements are necessary to fulfil the requirement of Section 34 IPC.
One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence
and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre-
arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person
cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
20. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of
proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The
presumption of the innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by
the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that point towards
the guilt of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be
weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
21. I have carefully gone through all the records at hand
and testimony of the witnesses. After perusal, this court is of the
opinion that the point for determination in the present case is:
I. Whether on 07.05.2014 at about 06:30
PM at House No. 52/66, First Floor, Gali No. 19, Nai
Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi accused persons, in
furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily
caused simple hurt to the complainant namely Meenu by
throwing boiling water upon her and thereby committed
an offence punishable U/s 323/34 of The Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02
16:58:12
+0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 24 of 42
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
22. Events leading to incident – The case of the
prosecution is that the event which led to the incident on
07.05.2014 is that after attending court proceedings, the
complainant and her mother returned home to find the electricity
disconnected by accused No. 3, who allegedly abused the
complainant and threatened her to withdraw the case, claiming
influence with higher authorities. It is further alleged that on
evening of 07.05.2014 at around 06:00-06:30 PM, accused Nos. 1,
2, and 3 allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language;
accused No. 2 slapped her, accused No. 3 called her prostitute, and
accused No. 1 allegedly threw boiling water from a ” pateela” at
her, causing serious injury to her hand.
23. Evidence of injured witness – The prosecution in
order to prove its case has examined the complainant namely
Meenu as PW-1 and her mother Umrawati Devi as PW-2, who are
the star witnesses of the prosecution. This it becomes important
here to discuss the lens with which the testimony of injured
witness is to be evaluated. Reliance in this regard is placed on
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr.
vs. The State of Maharashtra (2023) SCC Online SC 355 where it
was observed as follows:
“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be
appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the
Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of
the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material
contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be
believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits
to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value
and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be
discarded lightly. ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.02
16:58:18 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 25 of 42
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account
of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in
the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction,
exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the
evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be
taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep
due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two
principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the
case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of
occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for
them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly,
whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in
their evidence. In respect of both these considerations,
circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or
established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their
presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have
a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their
evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a
mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be
examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite
plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that
of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the
probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account
while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.”
23.1. Furthermore, In Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab
(1997) 7 SCC 712, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“10. It is a general handicap attached to all eyewitnesses, if they
fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as
vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all the events
very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be
attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught
with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be
viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden
scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an
eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details
without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the
canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may
be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events
is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that
what he witnessed was not something that happens usually but a
very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it
in the same sequence as it registered in his mind the testimony Digitally signedcannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone.”
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:58:25 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 26 of 42
Given the fact that each witness has a different perception
of facts, natural variations in their versions are bound to appear. As
such, it is in this light that the evidence of injured witnesses is to be
examined.
23.2. Furthermore, in Neeraj Sharma v. State of
Chhattisgarh [2024] 1 S.C.R. 40: 2024 INSC 6 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India while discussing the importance of
testimony of injured witness has held that the importance of
injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be over stated. Unless
there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the
defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as
extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial.
24. Contradictions and Inconsistencies – It has been
argued by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons that there are
material contradictions in the testimony of complainant as well as
mother of complainant. Thus, it becomes pertinent to discuss the
law regarding appreciation of evidence of a witness in case there
are contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of the said
witness. The Hon’ble Apex Court has pointed out in a catena of
judgments that minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the
matter, are of no consequence. In Brahm Swaroop vs. State of UP
(2011) 6 SCC 288, it was observed, inter alia, as under –
“32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the
evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters,
which do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case, may not
prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. “Irrelevant
details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a
witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.”
Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect
the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself
prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and
discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting
through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration
and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:31 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 27 of 42
the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus,
an undue importance should not be attached to omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of
the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.
As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to
be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound
to occur in the statements of witnesses. (See: State of UP vs. MK
Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash
(2007) 12 SCC 381, State vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 and
Prithu vs. State of HP (2009) 11 SCC 588)”
24.1. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the reliability of testimony of an injured witness
in light of contradictions and discrepancies in State of U.P. v.
Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, has observed as under –
“27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due
weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be
doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable
and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to
falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured
witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained
injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support
to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus,
the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in
law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant
go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the
commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured
witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the
rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] , Balraje v. State of
Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and
Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1262] )”
24.2. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Birbal Nath
v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors [2023] 14 S.C.R. 85: 2023 INSC
957, has observed as under –
“… In Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, this Court had
held as under:
“24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true
witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant
details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can
successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:58:38 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 28 of 42
courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the
court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious
a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of
two witnesses or as between two statements of the same
witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.”
24.3. The three judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India on 09th January, 2025 in a case titled as Goverdhan & Anr.
v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011) [2025]
1 S.C.R. 657: 2025 INSC 47 has held that:
53. To the same effect it was also observed in Appabhai v. State
of Gujarat (1988) Supp SCC 241 as follows:
“13. … The court while appreciating the evidence must not
attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The
discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the
prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies
which are due to normal errors of perception or observation
should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of
memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling
into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different
cases must evaluate the entire material on record by
excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness.
When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by
such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only
unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish
the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on
adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear
of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts,
however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such
witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy.
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Sohrab v.
State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819]
observed : [SCC p. 756, para 8 : SCC (Cri) p. 824, para
8]…”
24.4. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi very recently on
31st October, 2025 in the case titled State vs. Ram Swaroop & Ors.
in CRL.A. 969/2002 held that:
14. Reference in this context can also be made to another
judgment in State of U.P. V. Naresh and Ors. 2011 AD (SC) 20 Digitally signed bywherein it was observed in the following words: ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.02
16:58:45 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 29 of 42
“The evidence of an injured witness must be given due
weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence
cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered
to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the
actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone
else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own
relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the
time and place of occurrence and this lends support to
his testimony that he was present during the occurrence.
Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a
special status in law. The witness would not like or want
to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to
implicit a third person falsely for the commission of the
offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should
be relied upon unless there were grounds for the
rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein.”
15. The discrepancies/contradictions/improvements which are
not material cannot discredit the testimony of an injured witness
as was observed in the case titled as Vinod Tyagi & Ors. Vs. State
2013 IV AD (Delhi) 145.
16. Human memory has its own peculiar limitations of retaining,
recapitulating, narrating and reiterating etc. It varies from person
to person, event to event and from time to time etc. A person may
very meticulously and vividly remember certain events,
occurrences, persons or acts depending upon his own capacity,
the importance attached to the persons, events, time, places, etc.
Those very aspects may be too trivial for another person and
therefore, little or no memory would be there. It is common that
narration of events, etc. varies not only from person to person but
the same person may not be able to recall and reiterate a particular
thing/event, person/incident with the same precision and
chronological order as was the first or the previous narrative was.
This does not mean that the person was not privy to the event
narrated, as long as the essential aspect remains intact and alive.
A slip here or there or mix up about certain aspects would not rob
the strength of the narration as long as the inference and impact of
the narrative remains unadulterated and unaltered.
17. The discrepancies/inconsistencies etc. are required to
evaluated in the real world in real life situations, where minor and
trivial ones are to be ignored. A mix up in the face and name,
some minor mix up in chronological narrative, time gap, exact
timings which document prepared, where and signed by whom
first, so on and so forth are not potent enough to uproot the
testimony of a witness, if the soul of the narrative remains intact.
In this context reference can be made to the judgment State of
Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr reported in 1981 SCC (2) 752, it
was held as under:
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:58:51 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 30 of 42
“In the depositions of witnesses there are always some
normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may
be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of
observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time,
due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the
time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies
are those which are not normal, and not expected of a
normal person.”
In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr Vs. State of
Maharashtra (Crl.A. 25-26/2000), the Apex Court held as
under:
“Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in
material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony
of the witness. The omission in the police statement by
itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness
unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the
Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed
in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution
becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions
are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses
as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of
observation differ from person to person. The omissions in
the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the
present case, the same would not cause any dent in the
testimony of PW.2. Even if there is contradiction of
statement of a witness on any material point, that is no
ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness.
There is bound to be some discrepancies between the
narrations of different witnesses when they speak on
details, and unless the contradictions are of a material
dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the
evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of
evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in
criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but
variations by reason therefore should not render the
evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial
discrepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable
evidence.”
25. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the facts of
the present case may be considered. The arguments of Ld. Counsel
for accused persons are that the complainant has herself admitted
that there are disputes pending between her mother and accused
persons. It is further argued that there are contradictions in
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:58:57 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 31 of 42
testimony of complainant at every stage of
inquiry/investigation/trial.
26. Perusal of the application filed U/s 156(3) CrPC Ex.
PW1/B reveals that complainant has mentioned that she rushed to
call her mother upstairs when accused no.1 threw boiling water
upon her.1 However, during the trial PW1/complainant has
deposed that on hearing her screams, her mother came
downstairs.2 Furthermore, perusal of the application filed U/s 156
(3) CrPC and the statement of complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC
reveals that the complainant has not mentioned anything regarding
accused persons beating her mother. The complainant for the first
time disclosed the fact of accused persons beating her mother,
during the trial, when her testimony was recorded wherein, she has
stated that her mother was also beaten by accused persons. 3
However, PW2 has corroborated the version of PW1 and has
deposed that she was also given beatings by all three accused
persons. PW1 has deposed that she is illiterate and has deposed
that she does not know, whether the person who had written her
complaint to DCP Ex. PW1/A has read over the complaint to her or
not and she also deposed that she does not know what was written
in her complaint Ex. PW1/B.4 Thus, the base on which whole FIR
and present case is based becomes doubtful. The complainant has
denied the suggestion that site plan Ex. PW7/B was not prepared at
her instance. Thus, if the site plan was prepared at the instance of
1
It is mentioned in para no. 8 of the application filed U/s 156 (3) CrPC Ex. PW1/B as, “…In
the meantime the accused no 1 go back in the house and bring a “pateela” of boiling water and
throw it on the complainant but the complainant moved from spot and the boiled water
dropped on her hand due to which she was injured badly…”
2
PW1 deposed that she started screaming and thereafter, her mother came downstairs and all
the accused persons started beating her mother also.
3
Supra note 2.
4
PW1 deposed that she does not remember know whether the person who had written her
compliant to DCP Ex. PW 1/A, read over the same to her or not. PW1 further deposed that she
does not know what was written in her complaint Ex. PW 1/B, before the Judge.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:59:04 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 32 of 42
complainant, the same should have signatures of complainant.
However, perusal of site plan Ex. PW7/B reveals that signature of
complainant is not present on it.
26.1. PW1 has also deposed that accused persons namely
Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi tried to press her neck. 5
However, this fact was also disclosed for the first time during trial
and the same was not mentioned in her application filed U/s 156(3)
CrPC Ex. PW1/B and the statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC. The
complainant has not mentioned regarding clicking of photographs
by her and breaking of her by the accused persons in her
application U/s 156(3) CrPC, however she has mentioned the same
in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC. Ld. Counsel for
complainant has assisted Ld. APP for state and has submitted the
complainant has mentioned the above stated fact in her statement
dated 07.05.2014, which was filed along with ATR and has
submitted that the same can be read in evidence, as it forms part of
application filed U/s 156(3) CrPC. However, perusal of record
reveals that the statement dated 07.05.2014 of the complainant was
never exhibited during the evidence, despite the complainant being
subjected to a lengthy examination in chief. Furthermore, the
alleged mobile phone was never seized by the IO during
investigation and the complainant has not produced any
photograph of date of incident. From the discussions made above,
it is evident that there are improvements upon material facts at
every stage of case. There have been additions done by the
complainant in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC, with respect
5
PW1 deposed that both accused persons Rajeshwar Pandey and Annu Devi tried to press her
neck and in the meantime, accused Tarkeshwar Pandey came along with a big bowl
containing hot water and threw hot water upon her, due to which she sustained burn injuries
on her right hand. ANKUR
PANGHAL
Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.02 16:59:11 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 33 of 42
to the facts not mentioned in application U/s 156(3) CrPC and
thereafter, in her testimony, which was recorded at the time of trial.
26.2. Furthermore, the date of incident is also not clear
because in her application U/s 156(3) CrPC, the complainant has
mentioned the date of incident as 07.05.2014. Thereafter, in her
statement recoded U/s 164 CrPC, the complainant failed to tell the
date of incident and in her testimony, recorded during trial,
PW1/complainant has mentioned the date of incident as
05.07.2014. Furthermore, PW2 has also failed to deposed anything
about the date of incident. There are material contradictions in the
testimonies of PW1/complainant and PW2/mother of complainant
regarding date of incident, which is a major contradiction and
discrepancy, which goes into the root of the matter, so as to
demolish the entire prosecution story.
26.3. Furthermore, no public person has been made
witness by the IO, except the complainant and her mother, whose
testimonies have discrepancies, which goes to the root of case of
prosecution. PW7 is the IO of present case and he has deposed that
the spot is situated in a residential area and he has admitted that
several other persons were residing in the concerned building and
several people reside in neighbourhood but he did not record the
statement of all the persons residing in building and neighbour.
Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort
was made by PW7 to join public witnesses in the proceedings. It is
a well settled proposition that non joining of public witness
shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police.
Section 100(4) of the Cr.PC also casts a statutory duty on an
official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the
society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:59:19 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 34 of 42
doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on
paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar vs. The Delhi
Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi had observed as under:
” … According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness
in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was
present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus
stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a
crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of
commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations.
Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the
Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good
foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to
contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the
investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any
public witness even though number of them were present. No
plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is
forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of
serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an
apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves
with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the
I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent
witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made
and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest
or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused.”
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi vs. State, 1992
(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
observed as under:
“18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it
should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made
to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident
that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we
find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have
been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery
being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers
had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later
on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they
could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to
perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a
citizen, which is an offence under the IPC“.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02
16:59:25 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 35 of 42
27. This Court is, however, conscious that the
prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole
ground of non-joining of public witnesses, as public witnesses
keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has
been held in Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988
SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of
public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there
are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinabove and
hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
28. Medical Evidence – The version of the injured
persons is however supported by medical evidence on record. The
accused persons have admitted the MLC No. 84/14 dt. 07.05.2014
Ex. AD-2 of the complainant under section 294 CrPC. From
perusal of MLC, it is revealed that the doctor has opined the nature
of injury as simple. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled
as Ashok Daga v. Directorate of Enforcement in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 8535/2024 (Diary No. 22849/2024) vide order
dated 12th July, 2024 has held that calling upon the accused to
admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the
prosecution along with the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could
not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused,
nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against
himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India.
28.1. In the case titled as Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726: 2024 INSC 800
while interpreting section 294 CrPC has held as under –
“15. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision, in particular, sub-
section (3) provides that where the genuineness of any document
is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence ANKURin any Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:59:32 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 36 of 42
inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of
the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That
is to say that if the authors of such documents does not enter the
witness box to prove their signatures, the said documents could
still be read in evidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has
the jurisdiction in its discretion to require such signature to be
proved. In the present case, the documents filed by the
investigating agency were all public documents duly signed by
public servants in their respective capacities either as
Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the autopsy or
other police officials preparing the memo of recoveries etc. As
such the Trial Court had rightly relied upon the same and
exhibited them in view of the specific repeated stand taken by the
defence in admitting the genuineness of the said documents. In so
far as the police papers which had been signed by private persons
like the informant, the same had been duly proved.
16. Thus the only job left for the Court was to appreciate, analyse
and test the credit-worthiness of the evidence led by the
prosecution which was available on record and if such evidence
beyond reasonable doubt established the charges, the conviction
could be recorded. However, if the evidence was not credit-
worthy and worthy of reliance, the accused could be given benefit
of doubt or clean acquittal.
17. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, found that
the evidence of PW 1 and 2, eye-witnesses to the account, to have
fully supported the prosecution story and during the cross-
examination, the defence could not elicit anything which could
discredit their testimony.
18. Coming back to the applicability of section 294 CrPC,
reference may be had to the following judgments of this Court in
the case of Sonu alias Amar vs. State of Haryana6 wherein this
Court had held in para 30 as follows:
“30. Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 provides a procedure
for filing documents in a Court by the prosecution or the
accused. The documents have to be included in a list and the
other side shall be given an opportunity to admit or deny the
genuineness of each document. In case the genuineness is
not disputed, such document shall be read in evidence
without formal proof in accordance with the Evidence Act.”
19. Further, in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of
Haryana,7 this Court held in para 14 as under:
“14….. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission
or denial on a document under sub-section (1) to Section
294 CrPC personally from the accused or complainant or6
[2017] 8 SCR 151: (2017) 8 SCC 570. ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
7 PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
[2015] 12 SCR 234: (2016) 15 SCC 485. 16:59:39 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 37 of 42
the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made
by the counsel for defence, on the document filed by the
prosecution or on the application/ report with which same is
filed, is sufficient compliance of Section 294 CrPC.
Similarly on a document filed by the defence, endorsement
of admission or denial by the public prosecutor is sufficient
and defence will have to prove the document if not admitted
by the prosecution. In case it is admitted, it need not be
formally proved, and can be read in evidence. In a
complaint case such an endorsement can be made by the
counsel for the complainant in respect of document filed by
the defence.”
20. Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs. State of Uttaranchal8
has held in para 21 as under:
“21. It has been argued that non-examination of the
concerned medical officers is fatal for the prosecution.
However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence
admitted the genuineness of the injury reports and the post-
mortem examination reports before the trial court. So the
genuineness and authenticity of the documents stands
proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under Section
294 of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that if the
genuineness of any document filed by a party is not
disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive
evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.
Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is
not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem
report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the
correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned
being examined.”
28.2. In light of the law down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in above mentioned judgments, it can be said that
genuineness of MLC of complainant was not disputed and
therefore, the MLC may be read in evidence in the trial without
proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be
signed. That is to say that if the authors of said MLC do not enter
the witness box to prove their signatures, the said MLC could still
be read in evidence. Perusal of MLC reveals that mild redness and
swelling over forearm of left hand has been mentioned on it.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.02
8
[2009] 5 SCC 771: (2009) 13 SCC 722. 16:59:44
+0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 38 of 42
Further, the nature of injury mentioned is simple. The complainant
has alleged that the injury was caused due to throwing of boiling
water upon her by accused no. 1. However, the complainant has
mentioned in her application U/s 156(3) CrPC that she has suffered
injuries upon her hand, whereas in her statement U/s 164 CrPC she
has mentioned that she suffered injuries upon her face and hands.
Thereafter, during trial, the complainant has not mentioned about
her injuries on face. Nothing has been mentioned in MLC of
complainant regarding the injuries received by her on face.
Furthermore, PW1 and PW2 have deposed that PW2 was also
beaten by accused persons, but no MLC of PW2 has been placed
on record. Neither any explanation has been placed on record as to
why MLC of PW2 was not conducted.
29. Official witnesses – The police officials examined by
the prosecution include the first responders and the officials who
investigated the case. These witnesses have deposed about the
events that unfolded pursuant to the incident. PW3/W/ASI
Kaushalya and PW5/ASI Ashok Kumar are the police officials
who accompanied the IO/PW7 to the spot i.e., house of accused
persons and are witness to arrest, personal search and bail of
accused persons. PW4/ASI Mukesh was duty officer and he has
deposed about registration of present FIR.
29.1. PW6/Insp. Pardeep Kumar responded to PCR call
made on intervening night of 07/08 May 2014. He has deposed
about going to spot and thereafter to Jeewan Mala Hospital as well
as collecting MLC of complainant. He has also deposed regarding
recording statement of complainant. PW7/Retd. SI Jai Parkash is
the IO in present case and he has deposed about getting the
statement of complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC, preparation of
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:59:51 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 39 of 42
site plan, recording supplementary statement of complainant and
her mother.
29.2. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused
that PW7 has not made any efforts to join any public person in
investigation, despite the place of incident being a public place and
thickly populated area. Furthermore, the police witnesses are only
relevant to prove the investigation conducted after the incident.
The version of these witnesses generally corroborates the claims of
the public witness.
30. Defence of accused – The accused persons in their
statements recorded U/s 281 r/w 313 CrPC have stated that IO has
not conducted the investigation in a proper and fair manner. They
further stated that they are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the present case by the complainant and her mother,
with whom matrimonial cases are pending. This fact has also been
admitted by the complainant that there are matrimonial disputes
pending between the mother of complainant and accused no. 1.
31. As such, on the basis of the above discussion, the
inevitable conclusion is that the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses does not inspires confidence. Regarding Section 34 IPC,
it is observed that the provision makes a person jointly acting in
concert with others, and in furtherance of their common intent,
liable for any act done by any person involved in the offence. The
Hon’ble Apex Court, in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of MP (2010) 10
SCC 259 has highlighted the ingredients of the provision, inter
alia, as under –
“49. Section 34 IPC carves out an exception from general law that
a person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a person
can also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others if he
has the “common intention” to commit the offence. The phrase
“common intention” implies a prearranged plan and acting in ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:59:59 +0530Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 40 of 42
concert pursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be
there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time. The
common intention to bring about a particular result may also well
develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with
reference to the facts of the case and circumstances existing
thereto. The common intention under Section 34 IPC is to be
understood in a different sense from the “same intention” or
“similar intention” or “common object”. The persons having
similar intention which is not the result of the prearranged plan
cannot be held guilty of the criminal act with the aid of Section 34
IPC. (See Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 174:
(1963) 1 Cri LJ 100])
..
52. In Gopi Nath v. State of U.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 620] this Court
observed as under: (SCC p. 625, para 8)
“8. … Even the doing of separate, similar or diverse acts by
several persons, so long as they are done in furtherance of a
common intention, render each of such persons liable for
the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for the
whole of the criminal action–be it that it was not overt or
was only a covert act or merely an omission constituting an
illegal omission. The section, therefore, has been held to be
attracted even where the acts committed by the different
confederates are different when it is established in one way
or the other that all of them participated and engaged
themselves in furtherance of the common intention which
might be of a preconcerted or prearranged plan or one
manifested or developed on the spur of the moment in the
course of the commission of the offence. The common
intention or the intention of the individual concerned in
furtherance of the common intention could be proved either
from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or
attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the
parties. The ultimate decision, at any rate, would invariably
depend upon the inferences deducible from the
circumstances of each case.” (emphasis supplied)
32. In view of the above observations, the evidence on
record is to be evaluated. As observed, the material on record is not
sufficient to conclude that the accused persons acted in concert to
attack the injured person/complainant as well as her mother. On
the basis of the above, it can be held that the prosecution has not
been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the
offences with which the accused persons have been charged with.
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR
CONCLUSION
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
17:00:06 +0530
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 41 of 42
33. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable
conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove all the
ingredients of the offences beyond any iota of doubt. This Court
hold that the required threshold has not been met by the
prosecution and it has not been able to successfully prove that the
accused persons have committed the offences under Section
323/34 IPC. The accused persons have been successful in
punching holes on material aspects in the case set up by the
prosecution. The inconsistencies brought out by the accused
persons in the case of the prosecution are major and goes to the
root of the matter.
34. Resultantly, the accused persons namely 1.
TARKESHWAR PANDEY S/o Rameshwar Pandey 2.
RAJESHWAR PANDEY S/o Rameshwar Pandey and 3. ANNU
DEVI W/o Rajeshwar Pandey are hereby found not guilty and are
accordingly ACQUITTED of the offences punishable under
sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
35. Case property, if any, be disposed off as per law if not
already done.
36. File be consigned to record room, after due
compliance.
Announced in open court on 02.04.2026 in the presence of the accused
persons.
The judgment contains 42 pages and each page have been signed by the
undersigned. ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
17:00:26 +0530
(ANKUR PANGHAL)
JMFC-05, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
02/04/2026
Cr. Case No. 71837/16 State vs. Tarkeshwar Pandey and Ors. Page 42 of 42