Delhi District Court
State vs Chhote Lal Anr on 9 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 9208/2018
CNR No. -: DLWT020042722015
FIR No. -: 585/2014
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 324/341/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
(1) CHHOTE LAL
S/o Mohan Lal
R/o G-217, Gayatri Colony,
Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
(2) REENA
W/o Pappu
R/o G-218, Gayatri Colony,
Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
.... Accused Persons
1. Name of Complainant :- Annu
2. Name of Accused :- (1) Chhote Lal
Persons (2) Reena
3. Offence complained of :- 324/341/34 IPC
or proved
4. Plea of accused persons :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 18.11.2014
offence
Digitally
6. Date of Filing of case :- 11.08.2015
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:34:04
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 1 of 46
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 06.07.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 09.07.2026
9. Final Order :- (1) Chhote Lal:
Acquitted
(2) Reena:
Acquitted
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. S.N. Thakur, 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 namely Annu resides at
G- 218, Gaytri Colony, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand
Parbat. It is further case of prosecution that on 18.11.2014 at
about 8:00 PM, accused person namely Reena was abusing
neighbour of complainant namely Rajdhari and the complainant
asked accused Reena why she was abusing him, upon which she
started speaking abusively to complainant and began hurling
abuses. It is further alleged that when the complainant asked
accused Reena not to use abusive language, she started scuffling
with the complainant and in the meantime, accused Reena’s
husband, Chhote Lal (accused herein), also arrived. It is further
alleged that accused Reena caught hold of the complainant, and
accused Chhote Lal inflicted injuries on both hands of the
complainant with some sharp object. Mother, Savitri Devi, and
neighbour, Rajdhari, of complainant intervened and rescued her.
Someone called at number 100, and the PCR vehicle took the Digitally signed
ANKUR by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:34:09 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 2 of 46
complainant to the hospital. As such it is alleged that the accused
persons namely Chhote Lal and Reena have committed the
offences punishable under sections 324/341/34 of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC). Thereafter, a
chargesheet was filed against the accused persons after
completion of investigation on 11.08.2015 for the offences
punishable U/s 324/341/34 of IPC.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. Accused persons namely Chhote Lal and Reena
entered appearance before the court. In terms of section 207 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “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
324/341/34 of IPC against the accused persons namely Chhote
Lal and Reena on 03.08.2018. 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 :- Annu (Complainant)
PW2 :- Savitri Devi (Eye Witness and mother of
complainant)
PW3 :- W/HC Snehlata (Accompanied Ist IO to the
spot)
PW4 :- Rajdhari (Eye Witness and neighbour of
complainant)
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHALPANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09 16:34:18
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 3 of 46
PW5 :- SI Vidhyakar Pathak (Ist IO)
PW6 :- ASI Balram (IInd IO)
PW7 :- ASI Ramesh Chand (Accompanied Ist IO to
the spot)
PW8 :- Dr. Saurabh Jain (To prove MLC of
complainant)DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW1/A :- Statement of complainant recorded by
police officials
Ex. PW1/B :- Arrest memo of accused Chhote Lal
Ex. PW1/C :- Arrest memo of accused Reena
Ex. PW5/A :- Rukka
Ex. PW5/B :- Site Plan
Ex. PW8/A :- MLC No. 6871 dated 18.11.2014 of
complainantADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC)
Ex. AD-1 :- Registration of FIR along with certificate
U/s 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act,
1872 without admitting the contents
Ex. AD-2 :- Endorsement on rukka
Ex. AD-3 :- DD No. 28A dated 18.11.2014 PS Anand
Parbat
5. Ms. Annu (PW-1) is the complainant in the present
case. She took the stand to depose that on 18.11.2014 at about
8:00. P.M., accused Reena was abusing someone and she asked
her not to abuse. PW1 further deposed that upon this, accused
Reena started abusing her and when she resisted her, accused
Reena started beating her. PW1 further deposed that in the
meantime, husband of accused Reena, i.e., accused Chhote Lal
also reached there. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, accused
Reena caught hold of her and accused Chhote Lal hit on her
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:34:25
+0530 Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 4 of 46
hands with one sharp edged object. PW1 further deposed that her
mother Savitri Devi and neighbour Rajdhari came to rescue her.
PW1 further deposed that thereafter, she became semi-
unconscious. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, somebody
called at number 100 and police officials reached at the spot and
took her to hospital. PW1 further deposed that police official
recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A and on the same day, accused
Chhote Lal was arrested by police officials vide arrest memo Ex.
PW1/B. PW1 further deposed that on the next day, i.e.,
19.11.2014, accused Reena was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.
PW1/C. The complainant has correctly identified both the
accused persons in the Court.
5.1. PW1 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for
the State, after seeking permission from the Court, wherein she
admitted the fact that IO prepared site plan at her instance. PW1
also admitted the fact that the incident took place in front of
Jhuggi No. G-218, Gayatri Colony, Anand Parbat, Delhi. PW1
denied the suggestion that accused Chhote Lal is not husband of
accused Reena and he is a relative of accused Reena. PW1
further denied the suggestion that accused Chhote Lal used to
live with accused Reena and this is the only reason why she
thought that accused Chhote Lal is the husband of accused
Reena. PW1 also admitted the fact that accused Reena was
abusing her neighbour namely Rajdhari.
5.2. In cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for
the accused persons, Ms. Annu (PW 1) deposed that she does not
remember the exact date month and year of incident today. PW1
further deposed that she can write her name, however she did not Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:34:32 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 5 of 46
go to the school. PW1 further deposed that the incident happened
in the night but she does not remember the exact time. PW1
further deposed that she was sweeper in the Acharya Bhikshu
Hospital at that time. PW1 further deposed that on that day she
had taken leave. PW1 further deposed that attendance of her duty
was maintained in the hospital. PW1 further deposed that on the
date of her cross-examination, she cannot bring the duty register
of that day. PW1 denied the suggestion that she was not working
in the hospital at that time and she used to drive rikshaw in Karol
Bagh at that time. PW1 further deposed that she had driven e-
rikshaw for two years prior to the incident. PW1 further deposed
that she does not remember the exact years. PW1 further deposed
that she used to reside in Gali no. 20, Baljeet Nagar on rent and
her mother used to reside in neighbourhood. PW1 further
deposed that at that time her children used to reside with her
husband in the neighbourhood as there was a matrimonial dispute
between her and her husband. PW1 further deposed that she had
purchased property from accused Reena, however she did not
hand over the property, grabbed her money and beaten her again
also. PW1 further deposed that house of Rajdhari was at a
distance of 100 meter from her residence. PW1 further denied the
suggestion that house of Rajdhari was at a distance of 5 km from
her residence. PW1 further deposed that the house of Rajdhari
was in troli basti gyatri basti.
5.3. PW1 in her cross-examination further
deposed that she reached at the house of Rajdhari between 08:30-
09:00 PM on the date of incident. PW1 further deposed that she
was going to meet her children. PW1 further denied the
Digitally
suggestion that her husband and children were residing in the
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 6 of 46
16:34:39
+0530
house of accused Reena. PW1 further denied the suggestion that
at that time her husband was in jail. PW1 further denied the
suggestion that accused Reena was looking after her children as
her husband was in jail or that she had quarrelled with Reena due
to this reason. PW1 further deposed that there were several
public persons at the place of incident during the quarrel. PW1
further deposed that she had not seen the weapon, however she
lost her consciousness. PW1 voluntarily deposed that it was
night. PW1 further deposed that public persons were present
nearby at the time of incident but nobody help her. She
voluntarily deposed that people were afraid of the accused. PW1
denied the suggestion that she inflicted injuries herself to falsely
implicate Reena as there was a dispute between Reena and her
husband. PW1 further deposed that she does not remember the
time when she gained her consciousness in the hospital. PW1
further deposed that injuries inflicted to her were sustained at the
T-point in the Gali (presently closed). PW1 further deposed that
she does not know who had called 100 number. PW1 further
denied the suggestion that she came from Karol Bagh side, while
shouting that “Reena mai tume barbad kr dungi tum ne mera
jeevan barbad kiya had” and inflicted injury upon her and ran
towards Ramjas Gate. PW1 further deposed that she does not
know who took her to the hospital. PW1 further deposed that
when she gained her consciousness her mother was with her
along-with Rajdhari. PW1 further deposed that she was
discharged from the hospital with in one hour but she does not
remember as to where she had gone first time. PW1 further
deposed that she does not remember the exact time. PW1 further
deposed that police recorded her statement at the hospital. PW1 Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:34:46 +0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 7 of 46
further deposed that police did not record statement of any
person in the hospital in her presence. PW1 also denied the
suggestion that she is deposing falsely to implicate the accused.
6. Savitri Devi (PW 2) is the eye witness and mother of
complainant who took the stand to depose that in the year 2014,
accused Reena was abusing someone and her daughter Annu
heard the voice and went outside and asked accused not to abuse
anybody. PW2 further deposed that upon this, accused Reena
started abusing her daughter and when her daughter tried to stop
her, accused Reena started beating her. PW2 further deposed that
she was inside her house at that time, and on hearing voice of
screaming, she went outside. PW2 further deposed that she saw
that her daughter Annu was caught hold by accused Reena and
accused Chhote Lal hit on the hand of her daughter with some
sharp object. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, she tried to
rescue her daughter from the clutches of accused persons. PW2
further deposed that her daughter Annu became semi
unconscious and somebody called at number 100. PW2 further
deposed that police official came and took her daughter to
Bhikshu Hospital. PW2 further deposed that her daughter was
given treatment in the hospital and police officials recorded her
statement as well as of her daughter. The witness has identified
both accused persons namely Reena and Chhote Lal in Court.
PW2 further deposed that her daughter Annu had shown the
place of incident to police officials.
6.1. Savitri Devi (PW 2) was cross-examined by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, wherein she has
deposed that she does not remember the date month and year of
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:34:53 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 8 of 46
the incident. PW2 further deposed that the incident happened at
08:00 P.M. and Reena was quarrelling with someone, when
Annu reached there from her residence. PW2 further deposed
that she used to reside in the neighbourhood of Annu. PW2
further deposed that Reena had assaulted Annu from iron hook.
PW2 further deposed that Chhote Lal had caught hold Annu.
PW2 further deposed that she reached at the spot along with
Annu. PW2 further deposed that there were several public
persons present at the spot but they were in favour of accused
persons. PW2 further deposed that after the incident Annu ran
into the Gali and she went behind Annu and called at 100 number
after seeing blood. PW2 further deposed that police reached there
after some time and police met her on the road. PW2 further
deposed that she had also brought Annu with her. PW2 further
deposed that Annu was unconscious for some time. PW2
admitted the fact that there was some property dispute between
Annu and Reena. PW2 further deposed that husband of Annu
was not residing with her at the time of incident. PW2 further
deposed that Annu was not driving E-rickshaw for lively hood on
the day of incident. PW2 further deposed that Annu used to drive
earlier. PW2 admitted the fact that Annu used to reside at the
Gali no. 20 near Baljeet Nagar. PW2 further deposed that she
along with Annu and Rajdhari went to the hospital along with
police officials. PW2 further deposed that she, Annu and
Rajdhari returned to their respective houses from the hospital
with in one hour of admission. PW2 further deposed that police
recorded her statement as well as statements of Annu and
Rajdhari at the hospital. PW2 further deposed that she does not
remember if she went to the PS at any point of time. PW2 further
ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:35:00 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 9 of 46
deposed that police visited their house after the day of incident.
PW2 denied the suggestion that Annu had falsely implicated
accused Reena and her husband or that Annu had inflicted injury
on herself. PW2 also denied the suggestion that she is deposing
falsely.
7. W/HC Snehlata (PW 3) was examined in chief on
19.11.2022 wherein she sated on oath that on 19.11.2014, she
was posted as W/Ct at PS Anand Parbat and on that day, she
joined the investigation of the present case along with SI
Vidhyakar Pathak. PW3 further deposed that they went to
Gayatri Colony where the complainant Annu met them. PW3
further deposed that on the instance of complainant Annu and
after inquiry, a person namely Reena was arrested by the IO.
PW3 further deposed that IO prepared the arrest memo Ex.
PW1/C in her presence as well as in the presence of complainant
Annu. The witness has correctly identified the accused Reena in
Court and further deposed that IO recorded her statement.
7.1. In cross-examination, W/HC Snehlata (PW 3)
deposed that the DD entry might have been made IO/SI
Vidhyakar Pathak. PW3 further deposed that she does not know
about the DD entry and they went to Gayatri Colony on the
motorcycle of IO/ SI Vidyakar Pathak. PW3 further deposed that
as far as she remembers, complainant met them and no other
person apart from public persons was present there. PW3 further
deposed that IO requested the public persons to join the
investigation but none of them agreed and went away by stating
some reasons. PW3 further deposed that she does not remember
for how much time they remained at the spot. PW3 further
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:35:07 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 10 of 46
deposed that the arrest memo Ex. PW1/C was prepared at the
spot by the IO. PW3 further deposed that she does not know
whether IO had obtained the signature of accused on arrest
memo. PW3 further deposed that she does not remember the
exact time when the arrest memo was prepared. PW3 further
deposed that IO recorded her statement at the spot only. PW3
admitted the fact that Gayatri Colony is the public residential
area. PW3 denied the suggestion that accused is falsely
implicated in present case or that no document was prepared in
her presence or that she is deposing falsely.
8. Rajdhari (PW 4) took the stand to depose that on
18.11.2014 at about 8:00 PM, accused Reena was abusing him by
standing outside her house and meanwhile, one lady namely
Annu came there and asked accused Reena not to abuse. PW4
further deposed that on hearing this, accused Reena started
abusing Annu and thereafter, heated arguments took place
between accused Reena and Annu and altercation started between
them. PW4 further deposed that Annu was carrying some
documents in her hand and accused Reena was trying to snatch
those documents. PW4 further deposed that meanwhile, accused
Chhote Lal reached there. PW4 further deposed that thereafter,
accused Reena caught hold of Annu and accused Chhote Lal hit
one sharp edged thing on the hand of Annu. PW4 further deposed
that blood started oozing out from the hand of Annu. PW4
further deposed that accused Chhote Lal snatched the documents
from Annu. PW4 further deposed that they tried to save Annu
from the clutches of accused persons and on seeing the blood,
both accused persons flee from there. PW4 further deposed that
Digitally
somebody called at number 100. PW4 further deposed that police
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:35:16
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 11 of 46
officials reached at the spot and took injured to hospital in the
PCR vehicle. PW4 further deposed that he also accompanied
Annu to hospital. PW4 further deposed that police officials
reached at the hospital and when he told the facts to the police
officials, police official scolded him and told him that how do he
knows about the incident. PW4 further deposed that in this
regard, IO recorded his statement. The witness has correctly
identified both accused persons in the Court.
8.1. Rajdhari (PW 4) was cross-examined by the
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he deposed that he
knows Annu from the past 15-20 years as she is his neighbour.
PW4 admitted the fact that accused Reena is also her neighbour.
PW4 further deposed that the incident happened on 18.11.2014.
PW4 further deposed that accused Reena and Annu are not
relatives. PW4 further deposed that there is one dispute with
regard to property between accused Reena and Annu. PW4
further deposed that there is no case /litigation pending in any
Court between accused Reena and Annu as per his knowledge.
PW4 further deposed that he does not know why accused Reena
started abusing him on 18.11.2014. PW4 further deposed that he
had quarrel with accused Reena time and again prior to this
incident. PW4 further deposed that he had filed complaint against
accused Reena with regard to the quarrel prior to this incident.
PW4 further deposed that he does not know the FIR number of
the case which was filed by him against accused Reena. PW4
further deposed that as far as he knows Annu was carrying
General Power of Attorney of one property. PW4 further deposed
that he cannot tell whose GPA it was. PW4 further deposed that
Digitally
signed by
the incident happened in Gali in front of the houses and the
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:35:21
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 12 of 46
neighbours gathered at the spot after the incident. PW4 further
deposed that no such incident had happened between accused
Reena and Annu prior to this incident. PW4 further deposed that
he does not know who had called at number 100. PW4 further
deposed that police officials reached at the spot after half an
hour. PW4 further deposed that he does not know whose
statement was recorded at the spot by the police officials. PW4
further deposed that police officials remained at the spot for
about 10 minutes and his statement was recorded by police
officials in the hospital. PW4 denied the suggestion that no such
incident had happened before him. PW4 further denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
9. SI Vidhyakar Pathak (PW 5) took the stand to
depose that on 18.11.2014, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as
SI and he received DD no. 28A. PW5 further deposed that
thereafter, he along with Ct. Ramesh went to the spot i.e.,
Punjabi Basti, where he came to know that injured was taken to
the hospital by PCR Van. PW5 further deposed that he received
information from the DO that injured was taken to Acharya
Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar. PW5 further deposed that
thereafter, he went to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital. PW5 further
deposed that injured Annu was undergoing treatment there. PW5
further deposed that thereafter, he received MLC of injured Annu
and recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. PW5 further deposed
that he prepared rukka Ex. PW5/A and handed over the rukka to
Ct. Ramesh for registration of FIR. PW5 further deposed that
accordingly, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered and
returned to the spot. PW5 further deposed that he had already
Digitally
signed byreached at the spot and injured also came there. PW5 further
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:35:28
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 13 of 46
deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW5/B at the instance of
injured Annu. PW5 further deposed that he arrested accused
Chhote Lal at the instance of Annu vide memo Ex. PW1/B and
accused Chhote Lal was given police bail. PW5 further deposed
that on next day, accused Reena was arrested vide memo Ex.
PW1/C and she was also released on police bail. PW5 further
deposed that thereafter, further investigation was marked to HC
Balram and he handed over the case file to MHC(r). The witness
has correctly identified both accused persons in the Court and
further deposed that he had recorded the statement of witnesses.
9.1. SI Vidhyakar Pathak (PW 5) was cross-
examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he
has deposed that the DD no. was received by him at about 08:15
PM and he reached at the spot at about 08:30 PM. PW5 further
deposed that he reached at hospital about 09:15 PM and
statement of complainant Annu was recorded at about 09:30 PM,
while she was undergoing treatment. PW5 further deposed that
complainant Annu had come to the spot (her house) on her own
and met him there. PW5 further deposed that the incident
happened in front of the house of complainant Annu. PW5
further deposed that the distance between complainant and
accused is about 40 meters. PW5 further deposed that no public
witness was present there. PW5 further deposed that nothing
sharp edged weapon was recovered during investigation. PW5
denied the suggestion that there was previous enmity between
complainant and accused persons and complainant had inflicted
injury upon her voluntarily to falsely implicate the accused
persons. PW5 further denied the suggestion that no such incident
as alleged had happened. PW5 further denied the suggestion that
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 14 of 46
16:35:35
+0530
he did not conduct fair investigation or that accused persons are
falsely implicated in the present case.
10. ASI Balram (PW6) is the second IO in present case
and he took the stand to depose that on 25.12.2014, he was
posted at PS Anand Parbat as HC and on that day, he received
case file of the present case from MHC(r) at instruction of SHO
concerned. He further deposed that he had gone through the case
file and investigation was almost complete. PW6 further deposed
that he has prepared charge sheet and filed in the court.
10.1. ASI Balram (PW6) was cross-examined by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he admitted the
fact that he did not do any investigation in present case. PW6
further deposed that he was beat officer of the area belonging to
the parties, so he knew them but during investigation and he did
not interact with them. PW6 further deposed that accused and
complainant were neighbours, but he does not remember the
exact distance between their house. PW6 denied the suggestion
that he is deposing falsely.
11. ASI Ramesh Chand (PW7) took the stand to depose
that on 18.11.2014, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as Ct. and
on that day, he was working on night emergency duty with SI
Vidhyakar Pathak. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, one PCR
call received by IO and he along with him went to the spot i.e.,
Punjabi Basti. PW7 further deposed that there they came to know
that injured was taken to the hospital by PCR Van to Acharya
Bhikshu Hospital. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, they went
to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and injured Annu was undergoing
treatment there. PW7 further deposed that IO recorded her Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHALPANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:35:42 +0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 15 of 46
statement Ex. PW1/A. PW7 further deposed that IO prepared
rukka and handed over the rukka to him for registration of FIR.
PW7 further deposed that accordingly, he went to the PS and got
the FIR registered and returned to the spot. PW7 further deposed
that IO had already reached at the spot and injured also came
there. PW7 further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW5/B
at the instance of injured Annu. PW7 further deposed that IO
arrested accused Chhote Lal at the instance of Annu vide memo
Ex. PW1/B and accused Chhote Lal was given police bail. PW7
further deposed that thereafter they returned to the PS. The
witness has correctly identified accused Chhote Lal in the court
and further deposed that he had not seen accused Reena.
11.1. ASI Ramesh Chand (PW7) was cross-
examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he
has deposed that the DD no. was received at about 08:15 PM and
they reached at the spot at about 08:30 PM. PW7 further deposed
that they reached at the spot where the quarrel had happened,
however he does not know whose house was in-front of the spot.
PW7 further deposed that they directly went to the hospital and
might have reached there in 10-15 minutes. PW7 further deposed
that complainant had given her statement to the IO in his
presence after they reached there. PW7 further deposed that
complainant had also mentioned the name of Reena as culprit
during investigation. PW7 further deposed that he does not
remember as to the details of injuries sustained by complainant.
PW7 further deposed that he went to the PS along-with the rukka
between 09:00-09:30 P.M. PW7 further deposed that DO had
registered the FIR within 30 minutes past 10:00 P.M. PW7
Digitally
signed by
further deposed that complainant was present at the spot when he
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:35:49
+0530 Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 16 of 46
returned to the spot from PS. PW7 further deposed that he does
not remember the house number of complainant. PW7 further
deposed that complainant along-with her mother was present in
the hospital when, they reached there first time. PW7 further
deposed that at the spot Annu along-with her mother and IO was
found. PW7 further deposed that no public persons had joined the
investigation at the spot. PW7 further deposed that he cannot say
if the house of Annu was not present near the spot. PW7 denied
the suggestion that complainant Annu did not meet him at the
spot when he returned there from PS. PW7 also denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
12. Dr. Saurabh Jain (PW8) took the stand to depose
that in the year 2014, he was working as a CMO, Casualty
Medical Officer in Acharya Shri Bikshu Govt. Hospital and on
18.11.2014 at about 8.42 PM, he medically examined the patient
Annu vide MLC No. 6871 Ex. PW 8/A.
12.1. Dr. Saurabh Jain (PW8) was cross-examined
by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he admitted
the fact he prepared the MLC as well as the fact that the injury
which was suffered by complainant can occur by self-
implication.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
13. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to
personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against them, the statement of accused was recorded
without oath on 18.12.2025 under section 313 CrPC. Accused
persons stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely
ANKUR
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
PANGHAL
implicated in present case. The accused persons further submitted
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:35:56
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 17 of 46
that they want to lead defence evidence and the matter was fixed
for defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
14. During the trial, accused persons led the following
oral evidence, in their defence: –
ORAL EVIDENCE
DW1 :- Reena (Accused no. 2)
DW2 :- Chhote Lal (Accused no. 1)
DW3 :- Anita (Eye Witness)
15. During the course of trial DW1 Reena was
examined on 19.01.2026, who is accused no. 2. In her
examination in chief, she has stated on oath that complainant
along with her husband and child used to reside on rent in the
accommodation provided by her. DW1 further deposed that after
2-3 months, complainant had a fight with her husband and during
the fight she hit herself with a knife on her head and sent her
husband to jail. DW1 further deposed that after three days of
husband Rakesh going to jail, complainant contracted a second
marriage with a person namely Titu. DW1 further deposed that
after marriage complainant used to beat her children badly
therefore, she asked complainant to vacate her room. DW1
further deposed that complainant was not vacating the room and
was fighting with her, therefore, she called on 100 number. DW1
further deposed that after the call, police official namely Rajeev
Jha came at the spot and she informed the police official
regarding the entire matter. DW1 further deposed that the police
official told her to give 2-3 days to the complainant to vacate the Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:36:04 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 18 of 46
room. DW1 further deposed that thereafter she received a
message from husband of the complainant Rakesh from jail, who
requested her to let his children stay in the accommodation and
told her that he will take the children the moment he is released
from jail. DW1 further deposed that thereafter she called police
official Rajeev Jha and he got the room vacated from
complainant and her husband. DW1 further deposed that the
police official Rajeev Jha handed over the children of the
complainant to her and told her that she should keep the children
with her till the time husband of the complainant Rakesh is
released from jail. DW1 further deposed that the complainant
after leaving the rented accommodation used to frequently visit
in her neighbourhood but complainant used to not visit her
children. DW1 further deposed that after few days, accused
Rakesh got released from jail and took his children along with
him. DW1 further deposed that in November, 2014, she does not
remember the exact date, she had a quarrel with Babita regarding
the space in the lane. DW1 further deposed that thereafter Babita
called Annu. DW1 further deposed that Annu came along with
three four of her associates and they entered her house and broke
her belongings including TV, fridge. DW1 further deposed that
complainant Annu was fully intoxicated at that time and she then
took a blade and started inflicting injuries upon herself with the
same. DW1 further deposed that thereafter Annu and her
associates ran from the spot. DW1 further deposed that she called
on 100 number and a police official namely Pathak came at the
spot. DW1 further deposed that police officials took photographs
and video of her house and took her to PS. DW1 further deposed
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
that at PS he made her sit for some time and also called
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:36:10
+0530 Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 19 of 46
complainant Annu. DW1 further deposed that the police officials
made them settle the matter and told complainant Annu not to
visit her house. DW1 further deposed that after sometime, she
received a notice and then she got to know about the present
case. DW1 further deposed that the present case has been filed
falsely against her.
15.1. Reena (DW1) was cross-examined by Ld.
APP for the state wherein she has deposed that she does not have
the documents of tenancy between her and complainant Annu or
her husband. DW1 voluntarily stated that they did not enter into
written rent agreement. DW1 further deposed that she does not
have any proof of second marriage of the complainant. DW1
voluntarily deposed that her neighbour namely Anita can also
depose regarding the same. DW1 further deposed that she does
not have any documentary proof or proof of any kind to show
that complainant Annu used to beat her children and she had kept
children of complainant with her for some time. DW1 further
deposed that she does not have the record of the 100 number call
made by her on the day of incident. DW1 further deposed that
she did not give any written complaint against complainant and
her associates for entering her house and breaking her
belongings. DW1 denied the suggestion that she does not have
the record of 100 number call and she did not give written
complaint as no incident as stated by her took place. DW1 further
denied the suggestion that she does not remember the date of
incident as she is deposing falsely. DW1 further deposed that she
had a dispute regarding property with Babita which has been
Digitally
recently disposed of by the SDM Court and on the day of
signed by
ANKURincident also she was having fight due to the same dispute. DW1
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:36:16
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 20 of 46
further deposed that she does not know the name of the
associates who accompanied Annu on the day of incident. DW1
further deposed that she does not have the photographs and video
of the belongings broken by complainant and her associates.
DW1 voluntarily deposed that however one of the neighbours
namely Anita can depose regarding the same. DW1 further
deposed that she does not have any proof to show that
complainant Annu was in intoxicated state. DW1 further denied
the suggestion that Annu and her associates had not come to her
house and broke her belongings and therefore she does not have
the photographs and videos of the same. DW1further denied the
suggestion that complainant was not in intoxicated state and
therefore the said intoxication has also not come in the MLC.
DW1further denied the suggestion that the complainant had not
inflicted injury upon herself. DW1further denied the suggestion
that on 18.11.2014 at about 08:00 PM she was abusing someone
when complainant asked her not to abuse. DW1further denied the
suggestion that she had abused the complainant and given her
beating. DW1further denied the suggestion that she caught hold
of the complainant and her husband inflicted injury upon the
hands of the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon.
DW1further denied the suggestion that accused Chote Lal is her
husband. DW1 further deposed that the said accused is her
neighbour. DW1further denied the suggestion that police
officials had come on the spot and took the complainant for her
medical. DW1 also denied the suggestion that she is deposing
falsely.
16. Chhote Lal (DW2) is accused no. 1 and he was
ANKUR
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
PANGHAL
examined on 19.01.2026. In his examination in chief, he has
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:36:25 Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 21 of 46
+0530
stated on oath that on the day of incident he was not present at
the spot, rather was at his place of work at B.K. Enterprises,
Naraina. DW2 further deposed that he came back at his house at
about 09:15 PM, after which police officials came and took him
to PS. DW2 further deposed that he does not have any concern
with the present matter and he has been falsely implicated by the
complainant as he used to reside in the neighbourhood and was
friends with accused Reena.
16.1. Chhote Lal (DW2) was cross-examined by
Ld. APP for the state wherein he has deposed that he does not
have any proof to show his presence at B.K. Enterprises, Nariana
on the day and time of incident. DW2 denied the suggestion that
on 18.11.2014 at about 08:00 PM accused Reena was abusing
someone and when complainant asked her not to abuse, she
started abusing the complainant and gave her beating. DW2
further denied the suggestion that accused Reena caught hold of
the complainant and he inflicted injury upon the hands of the
complainant with a sharp-edged weapon. DW2 further denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely regarding his presence at
factory and therefore he does not have any proof regarding the
same. DW2 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely.
17. Anita (DW3) is alleged to be an eye witness and she
was examined on 12.02.2026. In her examination in chief, she
has stated on oath that she is residing at H. No. G-219, Gayatri
Colony, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi and
besides the house of accused. DW3 further deposed that on
18.11.2014, at about 8 P.M. she was standing at the gate of her
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:36:32 +0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 22 of 46
house and at that time accused Reena and one other person
namely Babita was quarrelling. DW3 further deposed that Babita
was loudly telling her husband that “Annu ko bulao”. DW3
further deposed that after some time Annu along with four other
unknown persons reached there and they entered in the room of
accused Reena for breaking the house articles. DW3 further
deposed that after some time complainant Annu cried and said
that today, she will implicate Reena in a false case. DW3 further
deposed that thereafter complainant Annu gave cut, with a blade,
on the upper part of both hands. DW3 further deposed that
thereafter Complainant Annu ran way shouting from there. DW3
further deposed that she does not know after that what happened.
17.1. Anita (DW3) was cross-examined by Ld. APP
for the state wherein she has deposed that she is not sure whether
the date of incident was 18 but year was 2014. DW3 further
deposed that she also does not know the month of the year 2014
when incident happened. DW3 further deposed that she is
residing along with her family members i.e., her husband and
three children, at G-219, Gayatri Colony, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet
Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi since 2007. DW3 further deposed
that accused Reena along with her family members was residing
at G-218, Gayatri Colony, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand
Parbat, Delhi prior to her. DW3 admitted the fact that she and her
husband have cordial relationship with accused persons and she
also talks with accused persons. DW3 further deposed that Annu
came along with four other persons in sound condition. DW3
further deposed that she does not know whether Annu was in
drunk condition or not. DW3 further deposed that she did not file
Digitally
any complaint or call on 100 number when Annu came along-
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:36:37Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 23 of 46
+0530
with 4 other unknown persons and entered the house of accused
Reena. DW3 further deposed that she did not see Annu breaking
the house articles. DW3 further deposed that she only heard noise
of the same. DW3 further deposed that she does not know
whether Babita is related to complainant Annu or not. DW3
further deposed that complainant had cut her hand with the blade
in her presence. DW3 further deposed that the complainant was
standing outside the house of accused Reena at the time of
injuring herself with the blade. DW3 further deposed that she
was standing at the door of her house at that time. DW3 further
deposed that she did not take complainant Annu to the hospital as
after cutting herself with blade complainant ran from the spot.
DW3 denied the suggestion that on 18.11.2014 at about 08:00
PM Annu along-with 4 other unknown persons had entered the
house of the accused. DW3 admitted the fact that she does not
have any documentary proof to show that complainant had
entered the house of the accused and broken her house articles.
DW3 further denied the suggestion that Annu had not cut herself
with the blade rather accused Reena gave her beating and
accused Chhote Lal had hit Annu with the sharp-edged object.
DW3 voluntarily deposed that accused Chhote Lal was not
present at the spot. DW3 also denied the suggestion that she is
deposing falsely at the instance of accused Reena.
18. On 26.02.2025 defence evidence was closed on the
joint statement of accused persons and the matter was fixed for
final arguments.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.07.09
16:36:43
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 24 of 46
ARGUMENTS
19. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld.
counsel for the accused persons at length. I have also given my
thoughtful consideration of the material appearing on record.
20. 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 complainant has deposed in her testimony the
correct date and time of incident and has also deposed that when
she was being beaten by accused Reena, the accused Chhote Lal
caught hold of complainant and hit her hand with a sharp-edged
weapon. It is further argued that the testimony of complainant
has been corroborated by PW2/Savitri Devi as well as
PW4/Rajdhari, who are public witnesses. She has further argued
that the injuries received by the complainant have been duly
proved from the MLC of complainant Ex. PW8/A. Further
reliance has been placed upon the judgment titled State of UP vs
Naresh, 2011 SC and it has been submitted that in the said
judgment it was held that the statement of injured witness is of
great value as the said witness will not want to let actual person
go unpunished, merely to implicate a third person. 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.
21. 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 in the brief facts mentioned in
chargesheet, it has been mentioned that the DD No. 28A was Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:36:52 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 25 of 46
received on 11.08.2014, whereas the date of incident is
18.11.2024. It is further argued that the said DD No. 28 A
mentions that incident took place at Jhuggi No. C-218, Punjabi
Basti, Anand Parbat and perusal of site plan reveals that C-218
has not been mentioned in the same. It is further argued that the
addresses of all three public witnesses, examined by the
prosecution, are completely different and are not in vicinity of
each other. It is further argued that there are material
contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses and the
complainant regarding the role played by both accused persons.
It is further argued that the complainant has stated in her cross-
examination that she has reached the house of Rajdhari in
between 08:30 -09:00 PM, whereas the incident is alleged to
have taken place at about 08:00 PM. It is further argued that no
public persons were examined as witness by the prosecution,
despite they being present at the spot. It is further argued that
PW4/Rajdhari has deposed that accused Reena was abusing him,
while standing outside her house, whereas other alleged eye
witnesses including the complainant have deposed that accused
Reena went to the house of PW4/Rajdhari. It is further argued
that PW4/Rajdhari has deposed about property dispute between
accused Reena and complainant. It is further argued that the
witnesses are interested witnesses and accused persons have been
falsely implicated in present case. It is further argued that the
injury received by the complainant is a self-inflicted injury. 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 cast upon it. As such, it is prayed
Digitally
that accused persons be acquitted for the said offences.
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:36:59
+0530 Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 26 of 46
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
22. The accused persons have been charged for the
offences of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or
means (S. 324 IPC) and wrongful restraint (S. 341 IPC). In order
to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to
prove that the accused person voluntarily caused simple hurt, as
per Section 319 IPC, to the victim, by dangerous weapons or
means. Similarly, offence under Section 341 IPC is proved by
establishing that the accused person voluntarily obstructed the
victim from proceeding in a direction in which the victim had a
right to proceed. 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.
23. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 319,
324, 339, 341 & 34 of IPC, which are as follows:
“319. Hurt –Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to
any person is said to cause hurt.
324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means–
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting,
stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon
of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any
heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive
substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means
of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to
inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of
any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both.
339. Wrongful restraint –Whoever voluntarily obstructs any
person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any
direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said
wrongfully to restrain that person. Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:37:06 +0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 27 of 46
Exception –The obstruction of a private way over land or water
which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful
right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this
section.
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint –Whoever wrongfully
restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which
may extend to five hundred 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.”
24. In order to prove the offences punishable under
section 324 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;
iii. By use of dangerous weapons or means: The hurt
must have been caused by means of any
instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or
any instrument which, used as a weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of
fire or any heated substance, or by means of any
poison or any corrosive substance, or by means
of any explosive substance or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human
body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the
blood, or by means of any animal; and
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:37:12 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 28 of 46
iv. 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.
25. In order to prove the offences punishable under
section 341 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz.,
i. Obstruction: The act must obstruct any person;
ii. Prevention of movement: The obstruction must
prevent that person from proceeding in any
direction;
iii. No legal justification: The obstructed person
must have a right to proceed in that direction;
and
iv. Voluntary act: The obstruction must have been
caused voluntarily.
26. 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 Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:37:20 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 29 of 46
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.
27. 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
28. 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 points for determination in the present case are:
I. Whether on 18.11.2014 at about 08:00 PM in
front of Jhuggi No. G-218, Gaytri Colony, Anand
Parbat, Delhi the accused persons, in furtherance of
their common intention, voluntarily caused simple hurt
to the complainant namely Annu, by a sharp-edged
weapon and thereby committed an offence punishable
U/s 324/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
II. Whether on 18.11.2014 at about 08:00 PM in
front of Jhuggi No. G-218, Gaytri Colony, Anand
Parbat, Delhi the accused persons, in furtherance of
their common intention, wrongfully retrained the
complainant namely Annu and thereby committed an
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:37:26 +0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 30 of 46
offence punishable U/s 341/34 of The Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
29. Events leading to incident – The case of the
prosecution is that on 18.11.2014 at about 8:00 PM, accused
person namely Reena was abusing neighbour of complainant
namely Rajdhari and the complainant asked accused Reena why
she was abusing him, upon which she started speaking abusively
to complainant and began hurling abuses. This event led to the
present incident.
30. Evidence of injured witness – The prosecution in
order to prove its case has examined the complainant namely
Annu as PW-1, who is the star witness 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.
(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 Digitally signedevidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. ANKUR
PANGHAL
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
Date: 2026.07.09
16:37:33 +0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 31 of 46
(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.”
30.1. 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 cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone.”
Given the fact that each witness has a different perception of
ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
facts, natural variations in their versions are bound to appear. As
Date:
PANGHAL 2026.07.09
16:37:39
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 32 of 46
such, it is in this light that the evidence of injured witnesses is to
be examined.
30.2. 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.
31. Contradictions and Inconsistencies – It has been
argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons that there are
material contradictions in the testimony of complainant and other
public witnesses. 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
Digitally
signed by
as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the
ANKUR
ANKUR
PANGHAL accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to
2026.07.09 omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to
PANGHAL Date:
16:37:46
+0530
the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 33 of 46
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)”
31.1. 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]
)”
31.2. 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
ANKUR
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
PANGHAL
successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant.
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:37:53
But courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 34 of 46
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.”
31.3. 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]…”
31.4. 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
wherein it was observed in the following words: ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
Date:
PANGHAL 2026.07.09
16:38:05
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 35 of 46
“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
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:38:11 +0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 36 of 46
State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr reported in 1981 SCC
(2) 752, it was held as under:
“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.”
32. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the facts of the
present case may be considered. Entire oral and documentary
evidence led by the prosecution, in light of the settled principles
ANKUR
of criminal jurisprudence, has been carefully appreciated. It is
PANGHAL
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2026.07.09
pertinent to note that the prosecution case rests substantially upon
16:38:17 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 37 of 46
the testimonies of PW1 Annu, PW2 Savitri Devi and PW4
Rajdhari. No independent public witness has been examined
despite repeated assertions by the prosecution witnesses
themselves that several public persons were present at the spot at
the time of the alleged occurrence. PW1 categorically deposed
that several public persons were present nearby during the
quarrel. PW2 also admitted that several public persons were
present at the spot. PW4 similarly stated that neighbours gathered
at the place of occurrence. However, admittedly, no independent
resident or neighbour from the locality was joined in the
investigation or examined before the Court. PW5 and PW7
further admitted that no public person joined the investigation.
The site plan Ex. PW5/B also shows that the place of incident is
a public place. It becomes pertinent here to discuss illustration
(g) of section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the
Court may presume that evidence which could be and is not
produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who
withholds it. The failure of the investigating agency to associate
any independent witness assumes significance particularly
because the alleged incident took place in a densely populated
residential locality at about 8:00 PM. Such omission creates an
adverse inference against the prosecution case, especially when
the prosecution version is already suffering from material
discrepancies.
33. Though the prosecution has examined the complainant
as an injured witness and has also examined two purported eye
witnesses, namely PW2 Savitri Devi and PW4 Rajdhari, yet the
evidence brought on record does not inspire the degree of
confidence required for recording a conviction in a criminal trial.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:38:24
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 38 of 46
The testimony of PW1 Annu itself suffers from substantial
inconsistencies regarding the place and manner of occurrence. As
per the prosecution story, the incident occurred when PW1
objected to accused Reena abusing PW4 Rajdhari. However,
PW1 in her cross-examination stated that she reached the house
of Rajdhari between 08:30 PM to 09:00 PM, whereas the incident
is alleged to have occurred at about 08:00 PM. This contradiction
is not a minor discrepancy relating to lapse of memory but
directly affects the very presence of the complainant at the
alleged place and time of occurrence. The prosecution has
offered no explanation whatsoever regarding this inconsistency.
Further, the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4 materially
contradict each other regarding the role attributed to each
accused person. PW1 specifically alleged that accused Reena
caught hold of her and accused Chhote Lal assaulted her with a
sharp-edged object. However, PW2 gave an altogether different
version by stating that accused Reena assaulted Annu with an
iron hook and accused Chhote Lal merely caught hold of Annu.
Thus, according to PW2, the actual assault was committed by
accused Reena and not by accused Chhote Lal. This
contradiction goes to the core of the prosecution case because the
identity of the assailant and the overt act attributed to each
accused is a foundational fact required to establish guilt under
Section 324 IPC. Such contradictory versions regarding the
actual perpetrator render the prosecution story doubtful and
unreliable.
34. Similarly, PW4 Rajdhari introduced yet another version
by stating that accused Reena caught hold of Annu while accused
Chhote Lal hit her with a sharp-edged object and additionally
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:38:31 +0530 Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 39 of 46
snatched certain documents from her possession. The allegation
regarding snatching of documents does not find mention either in
the complaint Ex. PW1/A or in the testimony of PW1 or PW2.
This is a material improvement made by PW4 during trial. Such
inconsistencies regarding the genesis of incident assume
importance because they affect the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses and indicate embellishments in the prosecution
version.
35. Weapon of Offence: – The prosecution case also suffers
from serious infirmities regarding the alleged weapon of offence.
The prosecution alleges commission of offence under Section
324 IPC by use of a sharp-edged weapon. However, admittedly,
no weapon whatsoever was recovered during investigation. PW5
specifically admitted in his cross-examination that no sharp-
edged weapon was recovered. Neither the nature of the alleged
weapon nor its description has come consistently in evidence.
PW1 herself admitted that she had not seen the weapon allegedly
used and thereafter became unconscious. PW2 described the
weapon as an “iron hook”, whereas PW1 and PW4 referred
merely to a “sharp-edged object/thing”. However, the MLC Ex.
PW8/A of the complainant mentions the kind of weapon as
sharp. Such inconsistent descriptions create serious doubt
regarding the actual manner in which injuries were caused.
36. Medical Evidence – The version of the injured
person is supported by medical evidence on record. The MLC of
injured Ex. PW8/A has been proved by PW8, who has executed
the same. Perusal of MLC reveals that a contused lacerated
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
wound of 7-8 cm on right arm and 04 contused lacerated wounds
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:38:42
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 40 of 46
of 3-4 cm each on left arm has been mentioned on it. Further, the
nature of injury mentioned is simple and the kind of weapon used
is mentioned as sharp.
36.1. The medical evidence also does not
conclusively support the prosecution version. Though the MLC
Ex. PW8/A proves the existence of injuries on the person of
complainant, PW8 Dr. Saurabh Jain categorically admitted
during cross-examination that the injuries sustained by the
complainant could be self-inflicted. Thus, the medical evidence
does not rule out the defence version. It is settled law that where
medical evidence permits two possible views and the ocular
evidence itself is shaky and inconsistent, the benefit of doubt
must necessarily go to the accused, as held in Krishnegowda &
Ors. v. State of Karnataka by Arkalgud Police [2017] 4 S.C.R.
934 (p. 30).
37. Official witnesses – The police officials examined
by the prosecution include the first responders, the officials who
investigated the case and other formal witnesses. These witnesses
have deposed about the events that unfolded pursuant to the
incident. PW3/W/HC Snehlata is the police official who
accompanied the IO/PW5 SI Vidhyakar Pathak to the spot. The
role of the witness is that she accompanied the IO to the spot and
has deposed about the arrest of accused Reena, preparation of her
arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and recording of her statement by the
IO.
37.1. PW5/SI Vidhyakar Pathak is the first IO in
present case and he has deposed about receiving the MLC of
injured, recording of statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A,
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
PANGHAL
preparation of rukka Ex. PW5/A, manner of registration of FIR,
ANKUR
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr.
16:38:50
+0530
Page 41 of 46
preparation of site plan Ex. PW5/B at the instance of
complainant, arrest of accused persons, their release on police
bail and recording of statements of witnesses. PW6/ASI Balram
is the second IO in present case and he has deposed about filing
of chargesheet in the court.
37.2. PW7/ASI Ramesh Chand accompanied first
IO to the spot and he has deposed regarding going to hospital
along with the IO, recording of statement of complainant by the
IO, manner of registration of FIR by him, preparation of site plan
by the IO, the arrest of accused Chhote Lal and his subsequent
release on police bail. 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. The fact that they have deposed differently about certain
facts cannot be a ground to disbelieve the whole case of the
prosecution.
38. Defence of accused – The defence has consistently
projected a case of false implication arising out of prior disputes
between the parties. Significantly, the existence of prior property
dispute between complainant and accused Reena has been
admitted not only by the defence witnesses but also by
prosecution witnesses themselves. PW1 admitted that she had
purchased property from accused Reena and alleged that accused
Reena neither handed over possession nor returned the money.
PW2 also admitted existence of property dispute between Annu
and Reena. PW4 similarly admitted a property dispute between
them and further admitted that he himself had previous quarrels
with accused Reena and had earlier filed complaints against her.
Digitally
Thus, admitted prior animosity between parties furnishes a strong
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:38:56
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 42 of 46
motive for false implication and therefore the testimonies of such
interested witnesses required cautious scrutiny and independent
corroboration, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.
38.1. The defence evidence, though not required to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt, has further succeeded in
probabilising the defence version. DW3 Anita, an alleged
neighbour residing adjacent to accused Reena, deposed that
complainant Annu had arrived along with several persons and
later inflicted injuries upon herself with a blade while threatening
to falsely implicate accused Reena. Though the testimony of
DW3 may not be wholly free from doubt, it nevertheless acquires
significance because it finds partial corroboration from the
medical testimony of PW8 that the injuries could be self-
inflicted. It is a settled principle that the defence is only required
to create a reasonable probability in favour of the accused and
not to establish its case beyond all doubt.
39. Furthermore, to constitute wrongful restraint, the
prosecution was required to prove voluntary obstruction
preventing the complainant from proceeding in a direction in
which she had a legal right to proceed. However, there is
absolutely no specific evidence on record showing that the
complainant was obstructed or prevented from proceeding in any
particular direction. The prosecution witnesses merely alleged
scuffle and assault. Even if the entire prosecution version is
accepted at face value, the evidence does not disclose the specific
ingredient of “wrongful restraint” as contemplated under Section
339 IPC. Mere catching hold of a person during a quarrel,
without evidence of intentional obstruction of movement, would
Digitally
signed by
not ipso facto satisfy the legal ingredients of Section 341 IPC.
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:39:04
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 43 of 46
40. 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 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,
Digitally signed
ANKUR
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
Date:
PANGHAL 2026.07.09
at any rate, would invariably depend upon the inferences
16:39:11
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 44 of 46
deducible from the circumstances of each case.” (emphasis
supplied)40.1. In view of the above observations, the
evidence on record is to be evaluated. The prosecution witnesses
themselves are inconsistent regarding the role of each accused.
PW1 attributed assault to accused Chhote Lal whereas PW2
attributed assault to accused Reena and PW4 has given a mixed
version. In such circumstances, the existence of any common
intention becomes highly doubtful. Mere presence at the spot or
simultaneous participation in a quarrel is insufficient to infer
common intention unless cogent evidence establishes prior
concert or meeting of minds. The prosecution has failed to
produce any such evidence. The material on record is sufficient
to conclude that the accused persons acted in concert to attack the
injured person/complainant. On the basis of the above, this Court
has no hesitation to hold 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.
CONCLUSION
41. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable
conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the
ingredients of the offences beyond any iota of doubt. The
contradictions noted hereinabove are not trivial discrepancies
arising out of normal errors of observation or lapse of memory.
Rather, they pertain to the genesis of occurrence, identity of
assailant, nature of weapon used, manner of incident and specific
role of each accused person. This Court hold that the required
Digitally
signed by
threshold has not been met by the prosecution and it has not been
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.07.09
16:39:17
able to successfully prove that the accused persons have
+0530Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 45 of 46
committed the offences under Section 324/341/34 IPC. The
accused persons have been successful in punching holes on
material aspects in the case set up by the prosecution.
42. Resultantly, the accused persons namely 1.
CHHOTE LAL S/o Mohan Lal and 2. REENA W/o Pappu are
entitled to benefit of doubt and are hereby found not guilty. The
accused persons namely 1. CHHOTE LAL S/o Mohan Lal and 2.
REENA W/o Pappu are accordingly ACQUITTED of the
offences punishable under sections 324/341/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
43. Case property, if any, be disposed off as per law if
not already done.
44. File be consigned to record room, after due
compliance.
Announced in open court on 09.07.2026 in the presence of the accused persons.
The judgment contains 46 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.07.09
16:39:25 +0530
(ANKUR PANGHAL)
JMFC-05, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
09/07/2026
Cr. Case No. 9208/18 State vs. Chhote Lal and Anr. Page 46 of 46
