Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Kumar Dass Etc. 3 on 15 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-01
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
Ashok Kumar Dass & Ors. FIR No.1017/15
PS:Nihal Vihar
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No. 57702/16
2. CNR no. DLWT010019392016
3. Date of Institution 05.01.2016
4. Date of Commission of 13.10.2015
offence
5. Name of the accused 1. Ashok Kumar Dass
S/o Natwar Dass
R/o H. No.RGB-292, DDA Flats,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi
2. Krishan Pal Singh
S/o Rajbir Singh
R/o H. No.H-2/A-91, Kanwar
Singh Nagar, Nihal Vihar,
Nangloi, New Delhi
3. Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji
S/o Sukhbir Singh
R/o H. No.H-2/58, Kanwar Singh
Nagar, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi,
New Delhi POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed by
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 1/52 POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:11:30 +0530
4. Pradeep Tyagi
S/o Satpal Tyagi
R/o H. No.H-2/57, Kanwar Singh
Nagar, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi,
New Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 452/34 IPC, Section
308/34 IPC, Section 427/34 IPC,
Section 506/34 IPC and Section
379/34 IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 10.07.2026
judgment
9. Final order Convicted under Section 452/34
IPC, Section 308/34 IPC, Section
427/34 IPC, Section 506/34 IPC
10. Date of such judgment 15.07.2026
Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2015 ASI
Jai Bhagwan alongwith Ct. Surender on receipt of DD no.56A
went to the spot i.e. H-2/86, Kanwar Singh Nagar, Nihal Vihar,
Nangloi, New Delhi where they were informed that injured was
taken to hospital. Photographs of the spot were taken. He also
collected the MLC of the injured/complainant Pradeep Kumar
and recorded his statement. Injured stated that about one year
ago, he borrowed some money from one Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji
and gave his property papers to him as security. When he asked
for returning his papers he was abused. Two days prior to the
incident when he went to take his property papers back, wife of
Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji abused him and threatened him to
implicate him in a false case. On 13.10.2015 at about 7.15 PM Digitally
signed by
when the injured was in his office and counting the cash, POOJA
POOJA
TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2026.07.15
Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji alongwith his brother-in-law K.P. Singh 13:11:40
+0530FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 2/52
and his associates Pradeep Tyagi and Ashok Kumar Dass came to
his office alongwith iron rod, swords etc. They started
vandalizing his office and breaking glasses of the doors.
Bhagwan Singh hit his head with iron rod and gave him kick
blows. Pradeep Tyagi and K.P. Singh hit on his stomach with
sword. They snatched Rs.35,000/- which he was counting and
threatened to kill him. They also broke the glasses of his car
which was parked outside. His neighbour took him to the
hospital.
2. On 14.10.2015 at the pointing out of injured,
accused Ashok Kumar Dass and K.P. Singh were apprehended.
They disclosed that at the instance of accused Bhagwan Singh, in
order to teach a lesson to Pradeep Kumar they went to the office
of injured.
3. Accused Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji was arrested on
16.12.2015 and accused Pradeep Tyagi surrendered on
21.12.2015 in the court of Ld. MM.
Charge
4. Charge was framed against all the accused persons
under Section 452/34 IPC, Section 308/34 IPC, Section 427/34
IPC, Section 506/34 IPC and Section 379/34 IPC.
Prosecution evidence
POOJA
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined TALWAR
following witnesses:- Digitally signed by
POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:11:50 +0530
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 3/52
Material/public witnesses:
(i) PW1: Manoj deposed that:
“I am doing private job as teacher. On 13.10.2015, I was
going to my plot at Gali No. 3 which is situated at Kunwar Singh
Nagar, Nangloi from my residential house which is situated at 25
foota Road, Kunwar Singh Nagar. Nangloi as construction work
was going on at the said plot. At about 07.30 pm, when I reached
in between 25 foota road and gali no.3 in front of the office of
Sonu Gulia builders, quarrel was going on. I saw that 5-6 persons
were beating Sonu. The said office is of Sonu who was beaten by
the said 5-6 persons. I knew two of them by their names and their
names were Bhagwan Singh Choudhary @Fauji and K.P. I do
not know his full name but he was known in the locality by the
name of K.P. Out of the said 5-6 persons, three were having
sword in their hands and remaining were having danda and rods
in their hands. The said Bhagwan Singh Choudhary, K.P. and the
third one whose name I do not know, were having sword in their
hands/All hands. All of the said 5-6 persons were beating Sonu. I
intervened and 8-10 public persons also came there and they with
my help rescued Sonu from them. When we rescued Sonu from
them, the said Bhagwan Singh Choudhary broke the mirror/glass
of the driver side of one Swift car which was standing there. I do
not know as to whom the said swift car belongs. All the said 5-6
persons abused Sonu and threatened him that ” ab ki baar to tu
bach gaya agli baar nahi bachega”.
Out of the said persons who were beating Sonu, one Fauji
@ Bhagwan Singh and K.P. are present in the court today. ”
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 4/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:12:07 +0530
(ii) PW2: Praveen deposed that:
“Incident was of 13th day, year 2015 but I do not
remember the month of incident. On the date of incident at about
07.30 pm, I was present in my office at H-3, Kunwar Singh
Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi. I had received a phone call of my friend
Peeku and he told to me that “tere bhai ( jiska naam Sonu @
Pradeep hai) ko kuch log maar rahe hain”. He also told me the
name of two assailants as Fauji and his brother in law (Sala). He
did not tell me the name of brother in law of Fauji. I at once
reached at the office of my brother Sonu at H-2/86, Kunwar
Singh Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi. When I reached there, I saw that
my brother Sonu was lying on the street and Fauji, his brother-in-
law but I do not know his name, Pradeep Tyagi and one Dass but
I do not know his full name and others were beating my brother.
The said persons who were beating my brother Sonu were having
sword, danda and rod in their hands. cannot tell as to who
amongst them was having sword, danda and rod in their hands as
I was busy in rescuing my brother Sonu. I rescued my brother
from the clutches of accused persons. The accused persons also
broken the glasses of swift car bearing no. DL—-6749 of my
brother Sonu. The accused persons also threatened to kill my
brother Sonu. I can identify the accused persons if shown to me.
(At this stage, the witness correctly identified all the
accused persons present in the court by pointing out finger
towards them. The witness also identified the brother in law of
accused Fauji namely Kishan Pal and accused Ashok Kumar
Dass by pointing towards them. Witness states that Ashok Kumar
Dass was the said above mentioned Dass). I can identify other
POOJA
persons who gave beating my brother Sonu if shown to me. TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 5/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:12:14 +0530
(At this stage, Ld. APP wants to ask a leading question with
respect to the date of incident.
Heard. Allowed.
Q: Is it correct that the date of incident is 13.10.2015?
A: Yes, it is correct.”
(iii) PW3: Pradeep Kumar deposed that:
” I am doing a business of building material and also a
property dealer I am running property dealing business at the
ground floor of my above mentioned house in the name of
Guliya Property. I had given Rs.4,00,000/- without interest to one
Lala namely Gupta but his full name I do not remember as he
was in need of money to construct his house. The said Lala @
Gupta was residing in our colony at H-2 Block. The said Lala @
Gupta had given the documents relating to his property as
security and Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary, (accused present today
in the court, correctly identified) kept the said papers with him
by saying that he will be responsible for the money and said
“paise mai dilwa doonga”. I gave this money to Lala @ Gupta
one year prior to the incident. Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary
assured me so many times that he will get my money recovered
from Lala Gupta but not even a single penny vas paid 8-9 months
prior to the incident I went to my village to see my wife and
when I came back, I came to know that accused Bhagwan Singh
Chaudhary had purchased the said plot of which the documents
were kept as security with Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary. (Bhagwan
Singh Chaudhary ne vo plot jiske kagaj security ke roop me
Bhagwan Singh ne apne pass rakhe the, ko Lala @ Gupta se
khareed liya or Lala @ Gupta ko plot se bhaga diya). I after POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 6/52 Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:12:19 +0530
hearing this went to Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary and demanded
the documents of the property, which was purchased by
Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary from Lala @ Gupta and he assured
me that I will get my money soon. I visited Bhagwan Singh
Chaudhary so many times and in this process I wasted my one
year but my money was not recovered.) Whenever, I demanded
my money from Bhagwan Singh Chaudahry, The abused me.
Two days prior to the incident, I went to the house of Bhagwan
Singh Chaudahry. for the demand of my money and to have a
word with him, where I met his wife, whose name I came to
know as Smt. Devendri Devi. When I asked about Bhagwan
Singh Chaudhary she abused me and she told me “mai tujhe
jhoote case me faswa doongi”. When I left the house of Bhagwan
Singh, his wife made a call at 100 number and a false FIR was
registered against me on 11.10.2015.
On 13.10.2015, at about 7.15 PM, I was present in my
office which is known as Guliya Properties. H-2/86, Kunwar
Singh Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi- 41 and doing some accounts work
and also counting the money, then Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji, his
Sala K.P.. Pradeep Tyagi and Ashok Dass forcibly entered in my
office and started beating me. They had also broken the glasses
of my office and they had also broken the door of my office. The
said Bhagwan Singh @Fauji was saying to me that “aaj tuje
kaagaj or paise mangne ka hisab dete hain”. The said Pradeep,
KP Singh was having sword in their hand. Bhagwan Singh @
Fauji was having rod in his hand and he gave rod blow on my
head. Pradeep Tyagi poked the sword in my feet. KP Singh, put
sword on my stomach and said “aaj tere se achi tarah se hisab
POOJA
kitab karte hain, bahut din ho gaya”. Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 7/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:12:25 +0530
took out Rs.35,000/- from my pocket. After that they took me out
from my office and again started beating me on the road by
making me down on the road. They also threatened me to kill
They had also broken the glasses of my Swift Car, which was
parked outside my said office. My neighborer Sh. Manoj & my
brother Praveen and 50-60 other persons came there and rescued
me from the accused persons. My friend Doctor Sangwan came
to the spot and he took me to the hospital. In the hospital police
official/IO came and they recorded my statement which is
exhibited as Ex.PW3/A, which bears my signature at point A. All
the incident was captured in the CCTV footage which were
installed inside my office and outside my office. A CD was office
A prepared out of the CCTV footage and CD, pen drive, hard
disc (jisme recording hoti hai), connecting wire were handed
over to the IO and IO took them into their possession vide
seizure memo Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C, both these documents
bear my signature at point A. IO of the present case also prepared
site plan of the spot at my instance and the same is exhibited as
Ex.PW3/D, which bears my signature at point A. Police officials
also seized my said car.
The said persons namely Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji. K P
Singh. Pradeep Tyagi and Ashok Kumar Dass, are accused
present today in the court. (witness correctly identified all the
accused persons). I also handed over one document relating to
CD. I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced a polythene in sealed
condition with the seal of SBH and the same is opened.
Polythene is found containing another polythene, which is POOJA
containing a blood stained pant & shirt. Pant is having cut marks TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 8/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:13:01 +0530
on the front portion. The pant and shirt are shown to the witness,
who correctly identified the same. The clothes are exhibited as
Ex.PI (collectively).
MHC(M) also produced a small carton, which is
containing the pieces of glass and some piece are tinted with
black colour, which are shown to the witness, who identified the
same as were the smashed pieces of his office. The pieces are
exhibited as Ex.P-2 collectively.
At this stage MHC(M) has produced one sealed envelope
having particulars of the case and has the seal of FSL DOC. The
seal is somewhat broken and envelope is opened. From the
envelope, one DVD having the particulars of the FSL Report
number is taken out. DVD is played on the laptop brought by the
IO.
After playing the second video from the said DVD and
after showing to the witness, witness states that footage is of his
office but he failed to recognize the persons seen in the said
footage as the footage is dark and the same is black and white. In
the footage, seven persons are seen out of which six persons are
assaulting the seventh person seen in the footage.
One person who is assaulting is carrying a danda and he
give blow with the said danda on the body of the said seventh
person. One another person is also seen carrying a sword in his
hand and he is seen trying to assault the said seventh person but
he was intervened by one of the other six persons. It is also seen
that the seventh person is constantly beaten by the all six
persons. After sometime the assault stopped. After sometime,
two ladies and two children are seen coming in the office.
POOJA
Ans. I am present in the video and I am being assaulted by the TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 9/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:13:08 +0530
other persons seen in the video. However, I am not able to see
the persons who were assaulting.
Court observation: The footage is black and white due to
which the same is not clear.
At this stage, witness is also shown the seven still images
taken from the abovesaid footage. Same is also in black and
white and witness cannot not identify the persons seen in the
image. The photographs are marked as Mark PX-1(colly).
At this stage, 10 colour photographs of the office of the
witness and his car has shown to him. Witness identifies his
office and car but he states that he does not know who has
damaged the car as he was taken to hospital after being assaulted
by the accused persons.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP seeks permission to cross
examine the witness as he is not telling the complete facts.
Heard. Allowed. XXXXX by Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
The accused persons may have damaged my car but I
cannot say the same with certainty as car was outside.
At this stage, the witness is shown the photographs of the
car, he admits that the said car was released to him on superdari.
The photographs of the car is Ex.P-1(colly). These photographs
were taken in the PS at the time when the car was released to me.
cannot produce the said car as it is already sold, however, the
identity of the car is not disputed by the accused persons.”
(iv) PW4: Ravi Kumar deposed that :
“On 13.10.2015, I was present in the office of Pradeep
Gulia. Pradeep Gulia, was counting some cash. After sometime, POOJA
at about 7.15/7.20 PM, Bhagwan Singh, KP Singh, Pradeep
TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 10/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:13:15 +0530
Kumar and Ashok Dass, who are present in the court today,
reached there while ransacking the office of Pradeep Kumar
Gulia. Accused Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary caught hold Pradeep
Kumar Gulia and all the accused persons gave beatings to him
and thereafter, they dragged out Pradeep Kumar Gulia. On the
road, Pradeep Kumar Gulia was again beaten up by the accused
persons and their other associates. I could not save Pradeep
Kumar Gulia from the clutches of accused persons as I was bare
foot in the office of Pradeep Kumar Gulia, where the broken
pieces of glasses of office was lying. At the time of incident,
accused Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary @ Fauji and accused
Pradeep were carrying swords, accused KP Singh was having
iron rod and the other accused were having dandas. Accused
Bhagwan Singh snatched the cash which was having in the hand
of Pradeep Gulia.”
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW12: Arvinder Singh deposed that on 16.10.2015, ASI Jai
Bhagwan, IO of case FIR No.1017/15 PS Nihal Vihar called him and
requested him to do mechanical inspection of a car bearing
registration no.DL4CAS6749 make Maruti Swift VDI. He reached at
PS Nihal Vihar where he mechanically inspected the afore-said
vehicle and prepared his detailed report Ex.PW-12/A bearing his
signature at point A and seal at point B.
(ii) PW13: Dr. Gopal Sharma deposed that on 13.10.2015 he was on
duty and at about 9.15 p.m one patient Shri Pradeep Kumar son of
Shri Mahavir male 26 years was brought by his cousin. He examined POOJA
TALWAR
the afore-said patient and prepared his detailed MLC which is
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 11/52
Date: 2026.07.15
13:13:56 +0530
Ex.PW-13/A bearing his signatures at point A and his seal at point B.
He also gave the nature of injuries as grievous which is at point C as
there were blunt injuries on the chest with bony creptius plus
(underline fractures in ribs). According to nature of injury, the
weapons of offence were lathi, sword and sharp object as there were
multiple blunt injuries on chest, abdomen and head of the patient.
The information about the preparation of MLC was given to IO
ASI Jai Bhagwan of PS Nihal Vihar vide DD no. 29A.
(iii) PW15: Ajay Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2016 three parcels
duly sealed with the seal of JB were received in Computer forensic
unit from physics division of FSL Rohini. He checked the aforesaid
parcels, the first parcel contained one digital hard disc drive, the
same was marked as HDD1. The second parcel contained DVD of
Writex of 4.7 GB capacity and same was marked as DVD1. The third
parcel contained a DVR. He digitally analyzed the said drive and
hard disc. He retrieved the data from Ex.HDD1 and enclosed the
same in pen drive and the same was marked PD1. The folder
containing all the files was given the name of “DATA OF HDD1”.
He also digitally analyzed the DVD1 and retrieved the data and
enclosed the same in pen drive marked PD1. The folder containing
all the files was given the name “DATA OF DVD1”.
After retrieval of data, the pen drives were forwarded to
physics division of FSL Rohini for further examination. He also
forwarded the exhibits to Physics Division of FSL Rohini. He
prepared report in this regard as Ex.PW15/A running into two
POOJA
pages both bearing his signatures at point A. TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:14:02 +0530
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 12/52
(iv) PW16: Dr. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan deposed that on 25.10.2016
one sealed envelop was received in Physics Division of FSL Rohini
through computer Forensics Unit of FSL Rohini. The said sealed
envelop was sealed with the seal of DOC FSL. The said envelop was
marked to him. He checked the said envelop. The seal of same was
intact. He opened the said envelop and upon opening the same one
pendrive Ex.PD1 was found. The said pendrive was of make sandisk
of 16 GB capacity containing two folders namely “Data of DVD1
and “Data of HDD1”. He examined the aforesaid folders and the
video files in “Data of DVD1” were found similar to the video files
in “Data of HDD1”. The exhibits were sealed back with the seal of
VLN FSL Delhi. He prepared detailed report in this regard.
Ex.PW16/A bearing his signatures at point A on both pages.
Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW5: Ct. Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 21.12.2015, he was
on emergency duty at PS from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. On that
day, he alongwith SI Jai Bhagwan came at Tis Hazari Court as on
that day, the accused Pradeep Tyagi, surrendered before the court.
The accused was interrogated with the permission of court vide
the disclosure statement Ex.PW5/A bearing his signatures at
point A. The accused was arrested and personally searched vide
personal search memo Ex.PW5/B bearing his signatures at point
A. The PC remand against the accused Pradeep Tyagi was
obtained and he was taken to SGM Hospital for his medical
examination. The accused Pradeep Tyagi led them to the place of
occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW5/C bearing his
signatures at point A. The accused also led them towards Sukhi
Nehar to get recover the weapon of offence but same could not POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 13/52 Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:14:10 +0530
be recovered from there.
(ii) PW6: ASI Badlu Ram deposed that on 13.10.2015 he was on
duty as DO from 4 PM till 12 midnight. At about 7.39 PM, he
received a PCR call regarding quarreling and snatching of cash of
Rs.5,00,000/- from House no.H-2, Kawar Singh Nagar, Nangloi,
Delhi. He made entry in Rojnamcha against DD no.29A vide
Ex.PW6/A. The information regarding the above mentioned
incident was given to ASI Jai Bhagwan through telephone. At
about 11.00 PM he received a telephone call from Satya Bhama
Hospital of Doctor Gopal Sharma, regarding admitting one
injured namely Pardeep S/o Sh. Mahabir R/o H-2/86, Kawar
Singh Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi, by the neighbour of injured namely
Ravi vide MLC no.1126/2016. In this regard, he made entry in
Rojnamcha vide DD no.36A, vide Ex.PW6/B. The information
regarding the above mentioned DD no.36A was given to ASI Jai
Bhagwan through telephone.
At about, 11.55 PM, Ct. Surender came at PS with a rukka
which was sent by ASI Jai Bhagwan. On the basis of rukka, he
got registered the present case through computer operator vide
computer generated copy of FIR Ex.PW6/C, bears his signatures
at point A. He endorsed the rukka vide Ex.PW6/D, bearing his
signatures at point A. The rukka and copy of FIR were handed
over to Ct. Surender to dispatch the same to ASI Jai Bhagwan. A
certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was also
issued regarding FIR vide Ex.PW6/E,bearing his signatures at
point A.
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 14/52 Date: 2026.07.15
13:14:21 +0530
(iii) PW7: HC Sunil Kumar deposed that on 16.12.15 ASI Jai
Bhagwan intimated that the accused persons Krishan Pal Singh
and Bhagwan Dass @ Fauji would surrender before the court.
Accordingly, the above mentioned accused persons, surrendered
before the court. They were interrogated by ASI Jai Bhagwan
vide disclosure statement of accused Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji
Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. The accused persons
were arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW7/B to
PW7/B-3 bearing his signatures at point A. One day PC remand
against the accused persons was obtained to recover the weapon
of offence. In pursuance to their disclosure statements, accused
persons led them to Sukhi Nehar, Kamruddin Nagar, near bushes.
However, the weapon of offence could not be recovered. From
there accused Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji led them to his house to
recover the weapon of offence. However, there also the weapon
could not be recovered. The accused persons also pointed out the
place of offence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW7/C bearing his
signatures at point A.
(iv) PW8: ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 13.10.2015
information about DD No.29A regarding quarrel was given to
IOASI Jai Bhagwan by the DO. On receiving the said
information, he alongwith ASI Jai Bhagwan went to the spot i.e.
Kanwar Singh Nagar. At the spot, we found that the main gate of
the office of property dealer had already been smashed. The car
which was found parked near the office, was also found in
damaged condition. The above mentioned office was belonged to
Sh. Pradeep. ASI Jai Bhagwan took the photographs of the spot
from different angles. Some public persons were present at the POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 15/52 Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:14:27 +0530
spot and through them, they came to know that the injured had
already been shifted to unknown hospital. At the spot, ASI Jai
Bhagwan received the telephone call of DO to the effect that the
injured Mahavir was admitted in Satyabhama hospital. On
receiving the said information, he alongwith ASI Jai Bhagwan
went to hospital. From Satyabhama Hospital, ASI Jai Bhagwan
collected the MLC No.1126/15 of injured Pradeep, S/o Sh.
Mahavir. The injured Pradeep was fit for giving the statement
and therefore, ASI Jai Bhagwan met with him. Injured Pradeep
narrated the incident which was reduced into writing by ASI Jai
Bhagwan. IO ASI Jai Bhagwan prepared a rukka which was
handed over to him for getting the case registered at PS Nihal
Vihar. After having got the case registered, he returned at the spot
with rukka and copy of FIR which were handed over to ASI Jai
Bhagwan who had already reached there from hospital. They
tried to trace out any eye witness. However, no eye witness was
found there. The exhibits were lifted from the spot i.e. the broken
pieces of gate, blood stained earth vide seizure memo pertaining
to broken pieces of glass Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at
point A. On asking of Ld. Addl. PP for the State he stated that he
did not remember the number but the car was of white color.
The exhibits which were collected from the spot were
deposited in the maalkhana at PS. He identified broken pieces of
glass Ex.P2. He did not know as to whether the above mentioned
car was taken into possession or not.
(v) PW9: Ct. Rakesh deposed that on 02.12.2015, upon the
POOJA
instructions of the IO, he collected three exhibits sealed parcels TALWAR
sealed with the seal of JB and one blank hard disk from the MHC(M) Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 16/52 13:14:33 +0530
vide RC no.212/21/15 and went to FSL Rohini. He deposited the said
parcels/exhibits in the FSL. He handed over the receipt/
acknowledgment to the MHC(M). During his custody, he did not
tamper with the case property.
(vi) PW10: Ct. Amit Kumar deposed that on 14.10.2015, he
alongwith ASI Jai Bhagwan went to the spot i.e. H2/86, Kunwar
Singh Nagar. Complainant Pradeep met them there. He pointed out
towards the spot. IO prepared site plan at his instance and made
enquiry there. IO made further enquiries from the complainant who
stated that one accused namely Ashok Kumar Das was involved in
the incident and he was standing in front of H2/58, Kunwar Singh
Nagar. Thereafter, they accompanied the complainant, who pointed
out towards the accused and IO arrested him. IO made inquiries from
the accused. Thereafter, accused was taken to the hospital for medical
examination. Accused was produced before the concerned Ld. MM.
As Duty MM was not present, so accused was taken to Saket Courts
complex before the concerned Duty MM. Thereafter, accused was
sent to JC.
Site plan is Ex.PW-3/D. He put his signatures at point A on
disclosure statement of accused Ashok Kumar Das Ex.PW-10/A, at
point A on arrest memo Ex.PW-10/B, at point A on personal search
memo Ex.PW-10/C, at point A on the pointing out memo of spot by
the accused is Ex.PW-10/D. He also put his signatures at point A on
seizure memo of pullanda and four photographs Mark A-1 to A-4 and
the same is Ex.PW-10/E.
(vii) PW11: HC Harish Chander deposed that on 14.10.2015 he was POOJA
working as MHC(M). On that day, IO/ASI Jai Bhagwan of case FIR TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 17/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:14:39 +0530
no.1017/15 PS Nihal Vihar deposited personal search articles of
accused Ashok Kumar Das and he made entry in this regard in
register no.19 at serial no.1509. Copy of the said entry is
Ex.PW-11/A. IO also deposited some broken pieces of glass which
he lifted from the spot and he made entry in this regard at serial
no.1509 in register no.19 from point X to X. Copy of the said entry is
Ex.PW-11/B. IO deposited one car bearing registration no.DL 4CAS
6749 and he made entry at serial no.1509 in register no.19 from point
Y to Y. Copy of the said entry is Ex.PW-11/C.
On 16.10.2015, IO ASI Jai Bhagwan deposited one sealed
pullanda duly sealed with the seal of SBH and he made entry in this
regard at serial no.1514 in register no.19. Copy of said entry is
Ex.PW-11/D (OSR) from point Y1 to Y1.
On 04.11.2015, IO ASI Jai Bhagwan deposited one pullanda
containing CD duly sealed with the seal of JB and I made relevant in
register no.19 vide seal no.1555. Copy of the same is Ex.PW-11/E
from point Y2 to Y2. IO also deposited one DVR containing wire and
hard disc in sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of JB and he made
entry in register no.19 vide seal no.1555. Copy of the same is
Ex.PW-11/F from point Y3 to Y3.
On 02.12.2015, the afore-said four sealed parcels were sent to
FSL through Ct. Rakesh Kumar vide RC no.212/21/15 and copy of
the said RC is Ex.PW-11/G bearing his signatures at point A and the
signature of Ct. Rakesh Kumar at point B. Ct. Rakesh Kumar handed
acknowledgment of case acceptance and copy of the said document is
Ex.PW-11/H bearing the signature of Ct. Rakesh Kumar at point A.
He mentioned relevant entry in register no.19 for further steps taken
for the aforesaid case properties. These notings are at point Y4 to Y4,
POOJA
Y5 to Y5, Y6 to Y6, Y7 to Y7 and Y8 to Y8 on the afore-said TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 18/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:14:46 +0530
documents, all bearing his signatures at points A.
(viii) PW14: ACP Devender Kumar deposed that on 10.12.2015 upon
the request of IO he handed over print out of PCR forms relevant to
this case along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The
same are Ex.PW-14/A, PW-14/B and PW-14/C bearing his signatures
at point A.
(ix) PW17: SI Jai Bhagwan deposed that:
“On 13.10.2015 I was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as SI. On that
day I was on emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. I received
DD no.29A at about 7.39 pm. The same is already Ex.PW6/A bearing
my signatures at point A. I alongwith Ct. Surender went to H-2/86
Kanwar Singh Nagar.
When we reached the spot we found that the glass of the
window of the Swift car bearing no. DL4CAS6749 white colour
were smashed. We also found that the tinted glass of the main gate of
the office of the property dealer were also smashed, however, we did
not find the complainant there. We came to know that the
owner/injured Pradeep was taken to unknown hospital.
I was telephonically informed by the DO vide DD no.36A is
already Ex.PW6/B (bearing my signatures at point A) that the injured
has been taken to Satya Bhama Hospital, Nangloi. I alongwith Ct.
Surender went to Satyabhama Hospital. There we collected MLC
no.1126/15 of injured Pradeep was received and the injured was
found to be under treatment and was fit for statement. The MLC
no.1126/15 was found to be incomplete.
Statement of injured Pradeep was recorded at 11.10 pm. At
POOJA
11.40 pm I sent Ct. Surender to the PS with the rukka for registration TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 19/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:14:53 +0530
of the FIR. I came back to the spot. At around 1.00 Ct. Surender
reached the spot with the copy of FIR. The spot was inspected.
The Swift car was seized vide memo already Ex.PW8/B
bearing my signature at point B. The exhibits i.e. the broken pieces
of tinted glass of the office gate were lifted vide memo already
Ex.PW8/A bearing my signature at point B.
Statement of Ct. Surender was recorded vide already
Ex.PW8/DX bearing my signature at point A. I deposited the broken
pieces of glass lifted from the spot alongwith the car in the
malkhana. I called the private photographer. I clicked the
photographs of the spot including the office and car clicked through
the private photographer. 10 photographs are collectively
Ex.PW17/B. On 14.10.2015 at 10.00 am I alongwith Ct. Amit
reached the place of incident. While we were making enquiries, we
met the injured. At his instance, site plan already Ex.PW3/D was
prepared bearing my signatures at point B. At H. no.S-2/58 Kanwar
Singh Nagar accused Ashok Kumar Dass was standing and at
pointing out of injured Pradeep Kumar he was interrogated. He made
a disclosure statement already Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at
point B. A pointing out memo already Ex.PW10/D was prepared at
the instance of accused Ashok Kumar the same bears my signatures
at point B. He was arrested vide memo already Ex.PW10/B bearing
my signature at point B. His personal search was carried out vide
memo already Ex.PW10/C bearing my signature at point B. Accused
was then taken to SGM hospital for his medical examination.
He was medically examined. He was produced before the
court from there he was remanded to JC. The articles recovered
POOJA
during his personal search were deposited in the malkhana. TALWAR
Statement of Ct. Amit was recorded u/s 161 CrP.C. Same is
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 20/52 Date: 2026.07.15
13:15:00 +0530
Ex.PW17/A bearing my signature at point A.
On 15.10.2015 MLC of the injured already Ex.PW13/A was
deposited in Satyabhama hospital for opinion where the doctor
opined the injury to be grievous. On 16.10.2015 I alongwith Ct. Amit
reached Satyabhama Hospital. There the doctor handed over me four
photographs of the injured alongwith his pant and shirt and sample
seal SBH of the hospital which were seized vide seizure memo
already Ex.PW10/E bearing my signature at point B. The same were
deposited in the malkhana. On the same day mechanical inspection
of the Swift car was got done through a Mechanical Expert.
Mechanical Inspection Report is already Ex.PW12/A bearing my
signature at point B. I also recorded statement of Mechanical Expert
Harvinder Singh. On 01.11.2015 statement of public witness Manoj
Kumar and Praveen was recorded. On 03.11.2015 Notice u/s 91
CrP.C was given to the complainant/injured Pradeep Kumar for
giving the CCTV footage and DVR. On 04.11.2015 complainant
Pradeep Kumar went to the PS and handed over one Writex DVD.
The seizure memo of the said DVD is already Ex.PW3/B bearing my
signature at point B. He also produced DVR connecting wire and
Hard Disk vide seizure memo already Ex.PW3/C bearing my
signatures at point C. On 05.11.2015 statement of public witness
Ravi Ex.PW17/C was recorded bearing my signatures at point A. I
tried to search the remaining three accused persons but they could
not be found. On 23.11.2015 I got the NBWs of the remaining three
accused persons issued from the court. On 02.12.2015 Ct. Rakesh
deposited the exhibits in the FSL. Statement of HC Harish who was
the MHCM was recorded vide memo Ex. PW17/D bearing my POOJA
signatures at point A. Statement of Ct. Rakesh Ex.PW17/E was TALWAR
recorded vide memo Ex.PW17/E bearing my signatures at point A. Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:15:07 +0530
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 21/52
On 16.12.2015 accused Bhagwan Singh and Krishan Pal Singh
surrendered before the court. I alongwith Ct. Udham Singh and HC
Sunil reached the court and interrogated both the accused persons.
Disclosure statement of accused Bhagwan Singh was recorded vide
memo already Ex.PW7/A bearing my signatures at point B. He was
arrested vide memo already Ex.PW7/B1 bearing my signatures at
point B. His personal search was carried out vide memo already
Ex.PW7/B2 bearing my signatures at point B.
Accused Kishan Pal Singh was arrested vide memo already
Ex.PW7/B bearing my signatures at point B. His personal search was
carried out vide memo already Ex.PW7/B3 bearing my signatures at
point B. On 17.12.2015 one day PC remand of both the accused was
taken. Effort was made to recover the weapons of offence i.e. the
sword and the rod but the same could not be recovered. Both the
accused persons pointed out to the place of incident. Pointing out
memo already Ex.PW7/C bearing my signature at point B was
prepared. Both the accused persons were taken for medical
examination and were sent to JC.
On 18.12.2015 proceedings u/s 82 CrP.C were got initiated
against accused Pradeep Tyagi.
On 21.12.2015 accused Pradeep Tyagi surrendered before the
court. He was interrogated. His disclosure statement already
Ex.PW5/A bearing my signatures at point B was recorded. He was
arrested vide memo Ex.PW17/F bearing my signatures at point B.
His personal search was carried out vide memo already Ex.PW5/B
bearing my signatures at point B. On 21.12.2015 one day PC remand
of accused was taken and pointing out memo already Ex.PW5/C
bearing my signatures at point B was prepared. Effort was made to
POOJA
recover the weapons of offence i.e. the sword and the rod but the TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 22/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:15:23 +0530
same could not be recovered. On the next day medical examination
of accused was got conducted and he was sent to JC. All the accused
persons are present in the court today and correctly identified by the
witness. I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage, it is submitted by the counsels for all the accused
persons that the case property has already been identified in the
testimony of other witness hence the same may not be got identified
by the IO. After consultation with the senior officials, chargesheet
was prepared and filed before the court.”
Statement of accused persons under Section 313 CrPC.
(i) Accused Pradeep Tyagi stated that this is a false case against him.
(ii) Accused Ashok Kumar Dass stated that it is a false case. The
present case is counter blast to the FIR No.1012/2015, which was
registered one day prior to i.e 12-10-2015 u/s 509 IPC against the
complainant of the present FIR namely Pradeep Kumar @ Sonu on
the basis of complaint of Smt. Devendri wife of his co-accused
namely Bhagwan Singh and sister of co-accused K.P. Singh in the
above-mentioned FIR. The complainant of the present case was
aware that all the accused persons were good friends. On 13-10-2015
at about 7 – 7.30 P.M., he was present at the house of Bhagwan
Singh, at that time Bhagwan Singh and his wife was not present
meanwhile two police officers reached at his house and apprehended
him and brought him at the house of the injured/complainant, where
the IO of the present case already present and they handed over to
him to the IO where injured/complainant was also present and he
identified him as one of the friends of the Bhagwan Singh thereafter
IO of the present case at the instance of the injured/complainant POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 23/52 Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:15:30 +0530
falsely implicated him in the present case.
(iii)Accused Bhagwan Singh stated that it is a false case. The present
case is counter blast to the FIR No.1012/2015, which was registered
one day prior to i.e. 12-10-2015 u/s 509 IPC against the complainant
Pradeep Kumar @ Sonu on the basis of complaint of Smt. Devendri
wife of Bhagwan Singh/Accused and sister of accused K.P. Singh in
the above-mentioned FIR.
(iv) Accused Krishan Pal Singh stated that this is a false case. He
was falsely implicated in this case because his real sister namely
Devendri lodged an FIR vide FIR No.1012/2015, PS – Nihal Vihar
against me, only because he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Moreover he was not present on 13-10-2015 in Delhi, on that day he
was in Jwala Ji (Holi place, Himachal) being Ist navratra and reached
village-Kalai, PS-Hardua Ganj, U.P. and on 15-10-2015 his mother
was expired at village-Kalai.
Defence Evidence:
6. Accused Pradeep Tyagi, Bhagwan Singh and Krishan
Pal Singh produced following witnesses in their defence.
(i) DW-1 Sh. Narender Singh deposed that:
“On 12.10.2015 at about 5.00 am I alongwith K.P Singh and
Dharmender R/o H. no.G-5, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi rushed to
Jawalaji (Himachal Temple) on my personal car four wheeler bearing
no. DL-4CAM-6918 and there we reached at temple at about 4.00
pm on the same day and we stayed in the temple (room of Pujari Ji)
and after Darshan on 14.10.2015 came back to H-82 Kunwar Singh POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 24/52 Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:15:38 +0530
Nagar, Gali no.10, Nangloi, Delhi. In Jawala Ji one photograph
captured by us (objected to by Ld. Substitute Addl. PP as to the mode
of proof). Today I brought the photograph captured there at Jawala Ji
Temple. The same is Mark DW-1/A.
(ii) DW-2 Ms. Mini, Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Komal Garg, Ld.
JMFC-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi produced the original file
of case FIR No.1012/15 PS Nihal Vihar, U/s 509 IPC, St Vs. Pradeep
Kumar @ Sonu. The complaint filed by Smt. Devendri Devi w/o
Bhagwan Singh R/o H-Z/58 Kunwar Singh Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi.
The original rukka alongwith FIR is Ex. DW2/A.
(iii) DW3: Sh. Rajiv Tyagi:
“I am the witness on the behalf of accused Pradeep Tyagi. On
the date of the incident i.e. 13.10.2015 at the time of the incident
around 7.15 pm the accused Pradeep Tyagi was at my residence since
it was the first day of “Navratri” and the accused and my family
share cordial relations in the neighbourhood and we were having
Pooja at my residence uptill around 8.30 pm. After the registration of
the FIR, when I got to know that the accused Pradeep Tyagi had
surrendered in the present FIR thereafter me and my wife Smt.
Poonam Tyagi met the IO In-charge in the present FIR and informed
him that on the date and time of the incident the accused Pradeep
Tyagi was at my residence and hence he was not at the place of the
incident. I was informed by the IO that at that time my statement was
not required and hence not recorded by the IO and I was told that
when it would be required in the investigation, I would be called by
him.”
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 25/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:15:46 +0530
(iv) DW4: Smt. Poonam Tyagi deposed that:
“I am the witness on the behalf of accused Pradeep Tyagi. On
the date of the incident ie. 13.10.2015 at the time of the incident
around 7.15 pm, the accused Pradeep Tyagi was at my residence.
Since it was the first day of “Navratri” and the accused and my
family share cordial relations being residing in the neighbourhood
and we were having “Pooja” at my residence uptil around 8.30 pm.
After the registration of the FIR when I got to know that the accused
Pradeep Tyagi had surrendered in the present FIR, thereafter I and
my husband Sh. Rajiv Tyagi met the IO, In-charge in the present FIR
and informed him that on the date and time of the incident the
accused Pradeep Tyagi was available at my residence and hence he
was not present at the place of the incident. I was informed by the IO
that at that time my statement was not required and when it would be
required in the investigation, he would be calling us.”
Arguments on behalf of the State
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that there is
sufficient evidence on record against the accused persons to
connect them with the offence. All the witnesses of prosecution
have fully supported its story. Accused persons deserve to the
convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
(i) Ld. counsel for accused Ashok Kumar argued that he has been
falsely implicated being close friend of Bhagwan Singh whose
wife had got an FIR registered against the complainant. PW1
Manoj could not identify the accused as he was not present at the
place of incident. He had no role to play in the commission of
POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 26/52 Digitally signed by
POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:15:54 +0530
offence. He deserves to be acquitted.
(ii) It is argued on behalf of accused Krishan Pal and Bhagwan
Singh that they have been falsely implicated in order to take
revenge by the complainant as wife of accused Bhagwan Singh
who is also the sister of Krishan Pal got an FIR under Section
354 IPC registered against the complainant. There are
discrepancies in the statements of all the prosecution witnesses.
Testimony of complainant is untrustworthy as he has given
contradictory statements. He categorically admitted in his cross-
examination that he had not seen the person who had hit him and
that he was informed the name of the perpetrator by one Ravi.
The entire investigation is tainted. No weapon of offence could
be recovered despite taking the accused persons on remand. All
the other witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested
witnesses who have been brought in the witness box as an after
thought. There are several discrepancies in the versions of all the
four witnesses. The benefit of doubt accrues in favour of accused
persons. They deserve to be acquitted.
(iii) It is argued on behalf of accused Pradeep Tyagi that he is
implicated in the present case as he is friends with accused
Bhagwan Singh and K.P. Singh. In order to seek revenge from
Bhagwan Singh as his wife got a case registered against the
complainant and wife of Pradeep Tyagi is a witness in the said
FIR, he has been implicated. Defence witnesses examined on
behalf of accused Pradeep Tyagi proved on record that he was
present in their house at the relevant time. PW1 Manoj did not
POOJA
identify the accused. The complainant categorically stated that he TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 27/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:15:58 +0530
did not see who caused injuries to him. No independent witness
has been examined despite the complainant claiming that around
40 to 50 people gathered outside his office. The accused is
innocent. He deserves to be acquitted.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by all
concerned and have perused the records including documents
relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Analysis of Law:
Section 452. House-trespass alter preparation for hurt,
assault or wrongful restraint.–Whoever commits house-trespass,
having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for
assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person,
or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of
wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
425. Mischief.–Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that
he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to
any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such
change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or
diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits
“mischief”
Criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503
IPC, punishment for which is defined under Section 506 IPC.
503. Criminal intimidation.–Whoever threatens another with
any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person
POOJA
or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 28/52 Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:04 +0530
intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any
act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation.
Theft is defined under Section 378 IPC, punishment
for which is defined under Section 379 IPC.
378. Theft.–Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any
movable property out of the possession of any person without
that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such
taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.–A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not
being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it
becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is
severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.–A moving effected by the same act which
effects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3.–A person is said to cause a thing to move by
removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by
separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving
it.
Explanation 4.–A person, who by any means causes an animal
to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything
which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that
animal.
Explanation 5.–The consent mentioned in the definition may be
express or implied, and may be given either by the person in
POOJA
possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 29/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:10 +0530
either express or implied.
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, 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 fulfill 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.
Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and
acting in concert pursuance to that plan. Common intention
comes into being prior to the commission of act in point of time
which need not be a long gap.
Observation of the Court
9. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on
receipt of DD no.56A pursuant to which ASI Jai Bhagwan
reached the place of incident. The victim was already taken to POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 30/52
Digitally signed by
POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:16 +0530
hospital. He obtained MLC of the victim on which alleged
history of assault by group of people with lathi, sword and sharp
object was mentioned by the doctor. In his statement victim
Pradeep Kumar has stated that on 13.10.2015 around 7.15 pm
one Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji, K.P. Singh, Pradeep Tyagi and
Ashok Kumar Dass reached his office with weapons. They all
assaulted him with the said weapons and threatened him. They
vandalized his office and damaged his swift car. All the aforesaid
persons forcfully entered his office and assaulted him and in the
said process they also took away Rs.35,000/- cash from his
office.
10. On the aforesaid complaint, charge under Section
452/34, 427/34, 308/34, 506/34 & 379/34 IPC was framed
against the accused persons.
11. Prosecution examined PW3 Pradeep Kumar, victim
as the star witness who deposed that he had a quarrel with
Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary over some money/property papers.
Two days prior to the incident, he visited house of Bhagwan
Singh Chaudhary to demand money where he met the wife of
accused Bhagwan Singh who got a false FIR registered against
him on 11.10.2015.
12. On 13.10.2015 around 7.15 pm while he was in his
office accused Bhagwan Singh alongwith his brother-in-law K.P.
Singh, Pradeep Tyagi and Ashok Dass forcibly entered his office
and started beating him. They damaged the things lying in the
office alongwith the glass of his car. Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary
POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 31/52
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:22 +0530
gave him a rod blow on his head, Pradeep Tyagi poked the sword
in his feet, K.P. Singh threatened him by putting the sword on his
stomach. Bhagwan Singh @ Fauji took out Rs.35,000/- from his
pocket. When his neighbour Manoj and brother Praveen came to
his rescue the accused persons fled.
13. PW1 Manoj who as per the victim came to his
rescue deposed that on 13.10.2015 at about 7.30 pm when he
reached in front of t he office of victim he saw 5-6 persons were
beating him. He identified accused Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary
and K.P. by name. All the assailants had swords, danda and rods
in their hands. Accused Bhagwan Singh, K.P and third one whose
name he did not know had swords in their hands. He rescued the
victim from the clutches of the accused persons. While leaving
Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary broke the glass of the swift car.
14. Brother of victim PW2 Praveen deposed that on
13.10.2015 around 7.30 pm he received a phone call from his
friend who informed him that his brother was being assaulted by
few men. He informed him about the name of two assailants
Fauji and his brother-in-law. When he reached the spot his
brother was lying on the street and Fauji, his brother-in-law,
Pradeep Tyagi and one Dass were beating his brother. They all
had swords, danda and rods in their hands. He rescued his brother
from the clutches of accused persons, who fled from there
threatening his brother and breaking the glass of swift car.
15. Besides these three witnesses prosecution also relied
POOJA
upon testimony of PW4 Ravi who deposed that on 13.10.2015 he TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 32/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:28 +0530
was present in the office of the victim who was counting cash.
Around 7.15 pm accused Bhagwan Singh, K.P. Pradeep Kumar
and Ashok Dass reached there and started ransacking the office.
They assaulted victim Pradeep Kumar. They were carrying
swords, iron rods and dandas. Accused Bhagwan Singh snatched
cash from the hand of victim.
16. In order to connect accused persons with the offence
prosecution is first and foremost required to prove their presence
at the place of incident.
17. PW1 complainant in his examination in chief
categorically deposed about presence of all the aforesaid four
accused persons and correctly identified them in court.
18. Complainant claimed to have handed over CCTV
footage where the alleged incident was recorded to the IO. The
DVD containing the CCTV footage was played in court.
19. Upon seeing the footage victim identified himself in
the video but stated that he is unable to see the persons who were
assaulting him. He identified the photographs of his ransacked
office but stated that he cannot say who damaged his office and
car as he was taken to the hospital.
20. In his cross-examination he stated that ” I cannot say
whether I was hit on the head from front or from behind. I could
not see who had hit me as there were many people present there. POOJA
TALWAR
He further deposed that “I had given the statement on my own on
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 33/52
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:34 +0530
the previous dates and not what the IO had told me. He also
deposed: Q.How many times your statement is recorded in the
court? (question disallowed as it is a matter of record).
I was may to read my statement before deposing in court.
IO made me read my statement. I had given the statement on my
own on the previous dates and not what the IO had told me. IO
had made me read my previous statement. I was made to read the
statement which was already written by the IO and got signed by
me when I was visited the PS. I was informed by the people from
the colony that the accused persons present in the court today
had assaulted me. I had myself identified the accused and not on
instance of any other person. One of the person who informed
me that the accused persons had assaulted me was Ravi. I
identified the accused persons as informed to me by Ravi. I
already knew the accused persons prior to the incident. ”
21. He further deposed “Since the assailants broke the
glass of the door and light hence I do not know who entered my
office. It is correct that I cannot say who assaulted me.”
22. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP he
admitted that he had a prior dispute with accused Bhagwan Singh
Chaudhary as he was not returning property papers.
23. PW3 in his cross-examination categorically deposed
that he was informed about the presence of accused persons by
one Ravi.
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 34/52 Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:40 +0530
24. Now this Ravi entered the witness box as PW4 and
identified all the four accused persons correctly. His testimony
could not be impeached on the aspect of presence of accused
persons at the place of incident. No motive of false implication
by Ravi could be brought on record by accused persons.
25. Besides PW4 Ravi, PW3 mentioned about presence
of PW1 Manoj and his brother PW2 Praveen. PW1 Manoj
identified Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary and K.P. He could not
identify accused Pradeep Tyagi and Ashok Kumar and explained
that since several persons were present there hence he could not
identify them due to lapse of time.
26. PW2 Praveen correctly identified all the accused
persons and proved their presence at the place of incident.
27. In cross-examination of all the four aforesaid
witnesses, none of the accused took a plea of alibi. In cross-
examination of PW1 Manoj no plea of alibi or non presence of
accused Ashok Kumar, Bhagwan Singh and K.P. was taken. No
cross-examination of this witness was done on behalf of Pradeep
Tyagi.
28. In cross-examination of PW2 none of the accused
took plea of alibi or their non presence at the place of incident at
the relevant time. The only suggestion is given with respect to
prior registration of FIR by wife of accused Bhagwan Chaudhary
against the victim and non presence of PW2 at the place of POOJA
incident. TALWAR
Digitally signed by
POOJA TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 35/52 Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:45 +0530
29. Similarly even to PW4 Ravi no suggestion with
respect to non presence of accused persons at the place of
incident is given and only non presence of the witness at the
place of incident has been suggested.
30. Accused K.P Singh and Pradeep Tyagi produced
witnesses in their defence taking the plea of alibi for the first
time.
31. DW1 Narender Singh entered the witness box on
behalf of accused K.P. Singh and deposed that on 12.10.2015 he
alongwith K.P. Singh and one Dharmender went to Jwalaji
Himachal Pradesh and returned back on 14.10.2015. In order to
corroborate his version he filed one photograph showing himself
with the accused.
32. Neither the negative of the aforesaid photograph was
placed on record nor any date is mentioned on the same to
substantiate the plea of alibi on the relevant date.
33. Accused Pradeep Tyagi produced one Rajeev Tyagi
and his wife Poonam Tyagi who deposed that the accused was at
their residence at the relevant time. Their testimony would not be
of much relevance as this plea was not taken at the time of cross-
examination of the witnesses who deposed in respect to presence
of accused at the place of incident. The aforesaid plea hence
appears to be an after thought.
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 36/52 Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:52 +0530
34. Accused Bhagwan Singh Chaudhary called for the
record of the previously filed FIR by his wife against the
complainant.
35. In the light of evidence as led by prosecution and
accused persons I proceed to decide the charges levelled against
the accused persons.
36. The accused persons have firstly been charged under
Section 452/34 IPC for committing house trespass after having
made preparations for causing hurt to the complainant.
37. Testimony of complainant coupled with the
deposition of PW1 Manoj, PW2 Parveen and PW4 Ravi would
be relevant.
38. All the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW4
have been argued to be interested witnesses as PW1 and PW4
had cordial relations with the complainant and PW2 is the cousin
of the complainant.
39. The law relating to testimony of interested witness
has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through various
pronouncements. The Apex court in Masalti Vs. State of U.P.
(AIR 1965 SC 202) observed as under:
“14. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend
that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the
ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. … POOJA
The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 37/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:16:59 +0530
that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No
hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence
should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in
dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence
should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as
correct.”
40. In the light of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex court the testimony of aforesaid three witnesses would be
scanned. PW1 Manoj and PW2 Parveen claimed themselves to
have reached the place of incident while the complainant was
being assaulted. As per PW1 Manoj he could identify Bhagwan
Singh Chaudhary and K.P. but could not identify Pradeep Tyagi
and Ashok Kumar.
41. This witness was extensively cross-examined and
denied the suggestion given by the Ld. Defence counsel that he
had some business relations with the complainant. On the aspect
of presence of accused Bhagwan Singh and K.P. Singh at the
place of incident at the relevant time stood unimpeached.
42. PW2 is the cousin of complainant, only for the fact
that he was related to the complainant would not make his
testimony unworthy of credit, being interested witness. This
witness identified all accused persons correctly and categorically
deposed with respect to assault to his brother by the accused
persons. His testimony on material aspect could not be
impeached.
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 38/52
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:17:06 +0530
43. PW4 Ravi proved the presence of all the accused
persons and also identified them. His presence alongwith the
complainant appeared in testimony of complainant PW3 as well
as in the cross-examination of PW2 Praveen who deposed “Sh.
Ravi was present in the office of my brother when I reached the
spot.” There are few discrepancies in his deposition however on
the material aspect his testimony stands unimpeached.
44. At this stage, it would also pertinent to scrutinize the
testimony of complainant who categorically proved presence of
all the accused persons and having been assaulted at their hands
in his examination in chief which was recorded in the year 2016.
However once he re-appeared in the witness box after 9 years i.e.
2025 he failed to identify the accused persons in the footage
handed over by him to the IO.
45. It would not be out of place to mention here that
there is court observation on footage that the same is dark.
46. In his cross-examination he stated that he could not
see who had hit him on his head as there were many people
present there. He conceded to the suggestion given by the Ld.
Defence counsel that he had read his statement before deposing
in court. However he explained that he gave the statement on his
own on the previous dates and not what the IO had asked him to
say. He also stated that he had himself identified the accused
persons as his assailants and not at the instance of anyone else.
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 39/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:17:13 +0530
47. This witness though gave some misleading
statements during his cross-examination, however on reading his
examination in chief recorded in the year 2016 alongwith his
cross-examination recorded in the year 2025 it cannot be said that
the two are contrary or that the benefit of his statement accrues in
favour of the accused.
48. It is settled law as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in catena of judgments that in case the witness resiles from
his previous statement when called upon for cross-examination
after a lapse of considerable time his prior testimony has to be
scrutinized minutely and not rejected out-rightly when read
alongwith his subsequent testimony exonerating the accused
persons.
49. It has been held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
case titled Deepak Vs. State Crl. A. 149/2000 decided on
03.12.2013 that: “Simply because in the cross-examination, the
witness turned hostile and did not implicate the accused, the
version given in the examination-in-chief recorded on oath on a
prior date cannot be disbelieved and discarded. The law is now
well settled that merely the witness is declared hostile, whole of
his evidence is not liable to be thrown away. In Crl.A.No.
432/2010, ‘Naresh Kumar vs. State‘ decided on 04.09.2013, this
Court observed:
“18. 1991 Cr.L.J. 2653 (1), Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari V. State
of M.P is a direct authority on the point in hand. In that case also,
examination-in-chief of the witness was recorded on 16.11.76, POOJA
TALWAR
when he identified all the assailants by name. His cross-
Digitally signed by
POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 40/52 13:17:21 +0530
examination commenced on 15.12.76. In that cross-examination,
he stated that since the accused had their backs towards him,
therefore, he count not see their faces. On the basis of that
statement, it was submitted that evidence regarding identity of
the accused was rendered highly doubtful and it would be
hazardous to convict the appellant solely on the basis of
identification of such a wavering witness. Hon’ble High Court
came to the conclusion, which was up held by Hon’ble Apex
Court that during one month period that elapsed since the
recording of his examination-in-chief, something transpired
which made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to
help the appellant. His statement in cross-examination on the
question of identification of the appellant and his companion is a
clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in his
examination-in-chief. As such, it was observed that there was no
material contradiction to doubt his testimony. It was further
observed that evidence of declared hostile is not wholly effaced
from record and that part of evidence, which is otherwise
acceptable, can be acted upon. Reliance was placed on well
settled decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court-Bhagwan Singh v.
State of Haryans, (1976) 2 SCR 921 : Air 1976 SC 202; Rabinder
Kumar Dev v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233: AIR 1977 SC
170 and Sayed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCR 95:
AIR 1979 SC 1848-Where it was held that the evidence of a
prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the
prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined
him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced
or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted
POOJA
to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful TALWAR
Digitally signed
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 41/52 by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:19:29 +0530
scrutiny thereof.
19. Substantially, similar view was taken in 2009 (XI) AD
SC 125 Alagarsamy& Ors. Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent
of Police. In that case also, the witness was declared hostile at
the fag end of his cross-examination. The examination-in-chief
of witness was recorded on 02.04.01 and on the same day he was
cross-examined by three defence counsels. Then only later on, on
26.06.01, when he was recalled, he was treated as hostile
witness. Hon’ble High Court commented that witness was tried
to be won over, after his cross-examination and this comment
was approved by Hon’ble Apex Court and it was observed that
law is not well settled that merely because witness is declared as
hostile witness, whole of his evidence is not liable to be thrown
away. Reference was made to Syed Akbar Vs. State of Karnatka,
1980 (1) SCC 30, Rabindera Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa,
1976 (4) SCC 233 and Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana,
1976 (1) SCC 389.”
50. Complainant deposed with respect to the presence of
accused at the place of incident and also correctly identified them
in court. Some changes in the statement are natural as human
memory tends to fade with passage of time. In this case the gap is
of over 9 years.
51. Interestingly when the complainant conceded to hte
suggestion of Ld. PP that he voluntarily gave previous
statements, the defence counsel suggested that complainant was
not in fit state of mind. Complainant was sane when he failed to
POOJA
identify accused persons in footage but when he supported the TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 42/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:19:35 +0530
story of prosecution he suddenly becomes insane.
52. All the aforesaid witnesses deposed with respect to
ransacking of the office of complainant and damaging his swift
car. Damage to the car is further proved through the testimony of
PW12 Sh. Arvinder Singh who carried out mechanical inspection
of the car and prepared his report Ex.PW12/A.
53. Further it is also argued that weapon of offence
could not be recovered. In so far as this argument is concerned,
the law relating to non recovery of weapon of offence is no more
res-integra. Non recovery of weapon of offence is not fatal to a
prosecution’s case. Hon’ble Apex Court vide its various
pronouncements held that recovering the crime weapon is not a
sine qua non for conviction.
54. Reliance is placed on Umar Mohd. Vs. State of
Rajasthan (SC) 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 574 wherein it is held
that:
“We also do not find any force in the submission of the
learned counsel that the weapons of offences were not recovered.
In any event, non- recovery of incriminating material from the
accused cannot be a ground to exonerate them of the charges
when the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are found
to be trustworthy.
35. In Krishna Mochi & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2002) 6 SCC
81], this Court held :
“It has been then submitted on behalf of the appellants that POOJA
TALWAR
nothing incriminating could be recovered from them, which goes
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 43/52
Date: 2026.07.15
13:19:41 +0530
to show that they had no complicity with the crime. In my view,
recovery of no incriminating material from the accused cannot
alone be taken as a ground to exonerate them from the charges,
more so when their participation in the crime is unfolded in
ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses, whose
evidence has been found by me to be unimpeachable.”
55. In order to prove offence under Section 452/34 IPC
prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons entered
the property of the complainant with an intent to cause him hurt.
56. As has been discussed in preceding paragraphs
presence of accused persons at the place of incident stands
proved through the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. All
these witnesses have corroborated the testimony of each other on
the aspect of accused persons carrying iron rods, swords and
dandas.
57. PW13 Dr. Gopal Sharma proved injuries on the
person of PW3 complainant stating that he suffered grievous
injuries and had fractured ribs.
58. Now the injuries sustained by the complainant can
by no stretch of imagination be self inflicted.
59. The accused persons could not prove their plea of
alibi or adduce any evidence in defence to cast a dent in the story
of the prosecution. The only defence taken by all the accused POOJA
persons is prior registration of FIR by wife of accused Bhagwan TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 44/52
Date: 2026.07.15
13:19:59 +0530
Singh. Interestingly the suggestion given to PW3 complainant is
that there was no prior dispute between the parties. In case there
was no dispute then how the FIR was got registered against the
complainant stands unexplained.
60. Presence of accused persons at the relevant time is
proved through the testimony of all the four star witnesses of the
prosecution. Injury caused on the person of complainant is
proved through MLC. The opinion of the doctor with respect to
the weapon allegedly used by the accused persons as stated by
the witnesses to cause injury to the complainant is relevant.
Damage to the car and vandalizing of office of complainant too is
proved through the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
61. All the ingredients required for the offence of house
breaking are proved on record. In view of the same, offence
under Section 452/34 IPC stands proved.
62. Accused persons have further been charged under
Section 427/34 IPC for damaging the swift car of the
complainant and smashing the window panes of his office.
63. As discussed above presence of accused persons at
the place of incident at the relevant time stands proved. PW12
Arvinder Singh who inspected the swift car of the complainant
vide his report Ex.PW12/A mentioned about the damage caused
to the car.
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 45/52 Date: 2026.07.15
13:20:10 +0530
64. Damage caused to the car by the accused persons
surfaced in the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 which
could not be impeached despite extensive cross-examination.
Damage caused to the window panes of the office of the accused
appeared in the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4
alongwith witnesses to investigation PW8 ASI Surender Singh
who was the first one to reach the spot post the incident
alongwith ASI Jai Bhagwan. He categorically deposed “At the
spot we found the main gate of the property dealer had already
been smashed. The car which was found parked near the office
was also found in damaged condition. Even the photographs
were clicked from different angles by ASI Jai Bhagwan ”
65. Testimony of ASI Surender is corroborated with the
testimony of ASI Jai Bhagwan.
66. On reading the testimony of all the aforesaid
witnesses it stands proved that damage to the car and office was
caused by the accused persons and hence they are liable under
Section 427/34 IPC.
67. Accused persons have also been charged under
Section 506/34 IPC for threatening to kill the complainant.
68. It is deposed by PW2 Parveen ” The accused persons
also threatened to kill my brother Sonu.” No suggestion is given
to this witness refuting the allegations. His testimony on this
aspect remains unrebutted and uncontroverted.
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed by
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 46/52 POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:20:16 +0530
69. PW3 the complainant deposed “They also
threatened to kill me”. Not a single suggestion is given to this
witness on the aforesaid aspect. Accordingly even the testimony
of the complainant on intimidation by the accused persons stands
unrebutted and uncontroverted.
70. In view of the statement of two crucial witnesses
allegations of intimidation against the accused persons stands
proved.
71. Accused have further been charged under Section
379/34 IPC for intentionally committing theft of cash of
Rs.35,000/- from the possession of complainant.
72. PW3 Complainant deposed that “Bhagwan Singh @
Fauji took out Rs.35,000/- from my pocket.” In his cross-
examination he stated “I was counting cash when few people
reached my office and I thought that the cash was away taken by
them, however when I returned from the hospital I was informed
by the munshi that the cash had fallen down.”
73. Besides this witness PW4 testified that “Accused
Bhagwan Singh snatched the cash which was in the hand of
Pradeep Gulia.” In his cross-examination he stated ” I cannot say
how much cash was in the hands of Pradeep Gulia.”
74. No other substantive evidence has been brought on
record to prove that the complainant had Rs.35,000/- in his hands POOJA
which was taken by accused Bhagwan Singh. Moreover the TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 47/52 Date: 2026.07.15
13:20:30 +0530
complainant himself later admitted that he made this allegation
under a misunderstanding that the cash has been taken by the
accused but his Munshi later informed him that the cash was in
the office itself.
75. Even PW4 Ravi could not reveal the actual amount
which was taken by the accused Bhagwan Singh.
76. The munshi who was allegedly present in the office
as per the complainant has not been brought in the witness box.
77. The evidence as led by the prosecution does not
prove the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the
benefit of same accrues in favour of accused persons.
78. Accused persons have also been charged under
Section 308/34 IPC for causing injuries to complainant Pradeep
Kumar on his head and other parts of the body with iron rod and
sword intending and with knowledge that the act could have
caused his death.
79. As has been discussed in preceding paragraphs,
presence of all the accused persons is proved at the place of
incident.
80. MLC of complainant PW3 Pradeep Kumar
Ex.PW13/A mentioned that the injuries sustained by him were
grievous in nature with multiple blunt injury on chest, abdomen POOJA
TALWAR
etc. Even as per the testimony of the witness PW3 was hit with
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 48/52
Date: 2026.07.15
13:20:59 +0530
lathi, sword and sharp object.
81. Though the injuries sustained by Pradeep Kumar are
grievous in nature, however premeditation and intention to cause
injury is the deciding factor to prove the offence under Section
308 IPC.
82. Section 308 IPC applies when the act was dangerous
and could cause death, but there wasn’t a definite intention to kill.
83. In analyising the elements required for conviction
under Section 308 IPC the presence of knowledge is critical.
These elements can be inferred from the nature of the act, the
severity of injuries and the circumstances under which the act
occurred.
84. Nature and extent of injury is crucial evidence but
the mental state is paramount.
85. Besides the ocular testimony of injured PW3
Pradeep Kumar, testimony of Dr. Gopal Sharma PW13 would be
relevant. Prosecution examined Dr. Gopal Sharma PW13 who
deposed that patient Pradeep Kumar sustained multiple blunt
injuries on chest with bony Creptius plus (underline fractures in
ribs). The same could have been caused with lathi, sword and
sharp object.
86. From the aforesaid observation of the doctor in the MLC POOJA
TALWAR
fractures in the ribs and injury on the abdomen and head stands
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 49/52 Date:
2026.07.15
13:21:04 +0530
proved. It has come in the testimony of all the witnesses that the
accused persons had swords, rods etc. in their hands and that the
complainant was assaulted with the same.
87. Coming equipped with swords, rods etc. and assaulting
the complainant on delicate organs such as chest, head and abdomen
clearly prove their intent and knowledge to cause such injury which
is sufficient to prove offence under Section 308/34 IPC.
88. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi Vs. Mohit Kumar
Pronounced on:23rd August, 2024 CRL.A. 541/2009 wherein it has
been held that:
“308. 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 amounting to murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both.”
15. Thus, it emerges that the main element of an offence under
section 308 IPC, 1860 is the knowledge and intention to cause such
injury which would be likely to cause death and if such death is
caused the offender would be liable for the offence of committing
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Apex court in the case
of Sunil Kumar vs. NCT of Delhi, 1998 8 SCC 557 emphasised that
POOJA
the court has to see whether the act irrespective of its result, was TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 50/52 TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:21:11 +0530
done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in Section 308 IPC, 1860.
16. In Narinder Kaur Oberoi v. State 2015 SCC Online Del. 7864,
Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the facts and
circumstances of each case need to be considered to ascertain
whether the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge. The
factors that may be relevant to ascertain the element of “intention or
knowledge” could be the nature of weapon used, the intention
expressed by the accused at the time of act, the motive for
commission of offence, the nature and size of injuries, parts of the
body of the victim selected for causing the injuries and severity of
blow and blows.
17. The Supreme Court, in the case of Roop Chand @ Lala vs. State
(NCT) of Delhi bearing Criminal Appeal No. 2204 Of 2010 decided
on 22.09.2020, held that the nature of the attack and the intent or
knowledge that the actions of the accused were likely to cause death
must be established. The severity of the injuries inflicted was also
held as another significant aspect.
18. Thus, to meet the threshold for Section 308 IPC, it has to be
clearly established that there existed an intent/knowledge to cause
death though the nature of injuries may also be material to ascertain
the requisite mens rea.
89. MLC PW13/A would reveal that injuries were also
caused on the head of PW3 Pradeep Kumar hitting the head with
an iron rod proves the knowledge on the part of the accused that
the same could cause death. POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:21:17 +0530
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 51/52
90. In view of aforesaid discussion, offence under
Section 308/34 IPC stands proved.
Conclusion:
91. In view of aforesaid findings, prosecution succeeded
in proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable
doubt. Accused Ashok Kumar Dass, Krishan Pal Singh, Bhagwan
Singh @ Fauji and Pradeep Tyagi are convicted for commission
of offence under Section 452/34 IPC, Section 308/34 IPC,
Section 427/34 IPC, Section 506/34 IPC and are acquitted for
offence under Section 379/34 IPC.
POOJA
Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) TALWAR
on 15.07.2026 ASJ(FTC)-01/West District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Digitally signed by
POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2026.07.15
13:21:24 +0530
FIR no.1017/15 St. Vs.Ashok Kumar Dass & ors. 52/52
