Delhi District Court
State vs Rajeev Khanna Etc on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
S.C. No.: 293/2017
FIR No.: 672/2015
PS: Badarpur
U/s.: 308/324 IPC
CNR: DLSE01-005458-2017
The State
Versus
1. Rajeev Khanna
S/o Late Shri Hukumat Rai Khanna
R/o H. No. E-9, DDA LIG Flats,
Molarband, Gautampuri,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
2. Shri Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu
S/o Shri Natthu Singh
R/o E-9, DDA LIG Flats,
Molarband, Gautampuri,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
Permanent R/o:
Village & P.O. Jironi,
PS Dado, Tehsil, Atroli,
District Aligarh, U.P.
Date of Institution : 21.07.2017
Order reserved on : 11.04.2026
Order delivered on : 15.04.2026
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:14:40 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 1 of 33
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Rajeev Khanna and Sanjay
Solanki @ Sonu are facing trial for the offence punishable U/s.308/34
Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC“).
BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of Prosecution is that on 25.10.2015 on the receipt of
DD No. 44-A ASI Raj Kumar alongwith Ct. Hari Chand reached at the
Apollo Hospital where ASI Raj Kumar collected the MLC of injured
Shri Dharamendra wherein doctor noted alleged history of assault, deep
lacerated wound and he was declared fit for statement. The injured /
victim gave his written complaint stating therein that ” on 25.10.2015 at
about 6.30 p.m. he went to the shop of Rajeev Khanna and told him to
keep good quality material at his shop as milk purchased by him get
sour; that Rajeev Khanna told him not to purchase things from his shop
upon which he told him to close his shop if he wants to sell inferior
quality things; that Rajeev Khanna misbehaved with him, abused him,
caught hold of his hands and asked his servant Sonu to kill him upon
which servant Sonu hit him on his head with iron road due to which he
got unconscious; that Rajeev Khanna hit some heavy object on his face
and call was made at 100 number; that his wife along with Deepak and
Rajesh Singh took him to Apollo Hospital before arrival of the police at
the spot” On the basis of said statement and the MLC of injured FIR u/s.
308/34 IPC was registered against accused Rajeev Khanna and Sanjay
Solanki @ Sonu. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was
filed against accused persons for the offence u/s. 308/34 IPC.
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:15:11 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 2 of 33
3. On the basis of charge-sheet so submitted before Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate and after compliance with the provisions of Section 207
Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was
assigned to this Court.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a
prima facie case against Rajeev Khanna and Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu,
requisite charges u/s. 308/34 IPC were framed against them to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many
as twenty three witnesses.
CHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Name of the Description.
witness no. witness
PW-1 Shri Dharamendra He is the complainant/injured in
Kumar Singh the present case.
PW-2 Shri Rajesh He is the eye witness of the present
Kumar Singh incident.
PW-3 Smt. Himanshi She is the wife of the complainant
and also the eye witness to the
present incident.
PW-4 PW-4 ASI Bir He recorded the DD in the present
Singh matter regarding the admission of
injured in Apollo hospital.
PW-5 ASI Kamal Ram He recorded the FIR in the present
case.
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:15:29 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 3 of 33
PW-6 Shri Sanjeev He is the General Secretary of
Kumar Yadav RWA, Molarband and handed over
the DVR to the police.
PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb She has proved the detailed
Barma subsequent opinion dated
08.08.2016 regarding the weapon
of offence.
PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar He medically examined accused
Sonu.
PW-9 SI Raj Kumar He is the first IO of the case.
PW-10 Shri Deepak He took the injured/complainant to
Apollo Hospital in his car.
Gandhi
PW-11 Shri Vivek He is the expert witness who
Kumar, Jr. examined the DVR in question and
Forensic / prepared the detailed report qua the
Assistant same.
Chemical
Examiner
PW-12 Shri Rajesh He identified accused Sonu @
Kumar Sanjay Kumar.
PW-13 Shri Indresh He examined the exhibits received
Kumar Mishra, in the office of FSL and prepared
Assistant Director detailed report qua the same.
(Biology), FSL
PW-14 HC Chetram He deposited the exhibits in the
FSL for examination.
PW-15 HC Rajeev He deposited the blood samples
and clothes in the FSL for
examination.
PW-16 Ct. Amit He joined the IO during the
investigations.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:15:41
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 4 of 33
PW-17 Dr. Deepak Vats He has proved the opinion given on
the MLC of injured Dharamendra
Kumar.
PW-18 Ct. Hari Chand He joined the IO during the
investigations.
PW-19 Shri Jairam He is alternate Nodal Officer who
proved the CAF and CDR of
mobile no. 8447581447 in the
name of Sanjay Solanki.
PW-20 Retd. SI He is also the IO who filed the
Mahender Singh supplementary chargesheet on
receipt of FSL report.
PW-21 Inspector Ranbir He is the last IO and filed the final
Singh chargesheet before the Court.
PW-22 ASI Sunil He deposited the case property in
malkhana handed over by the IO,
deposited the same in FSL against
acknowledgment and made entries
qua the same in Register no. 19.
PW-23 HC Om Prakash He was present at the PS when Shri
Sanjeev came to deposit the DVR,
one adapter and connecting leads
which were sealed and seized by
the IO.
Documents produced on behalf of the Prosecution.
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ attested by
Ex.PW1/1 Complaint PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
Kumar Singh
Ex.PW3/1 Site plan PW-3 Smt. HimanshiDigitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:15:47
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 5 of 33
Ex.PW3/2 Arrest memo of accused PW-3 Smt. Himanshi
Rajeev Khanna
Ex.PW3/3 Personal search memo of PW-3 Smt. Himanshi
accused Rajeev Khanna
Ex.PW4/A DD entry no. 44-A PW-4 ASI Bir Singh
regarding admission of
injured Dharamendra at
Apollo Hospital
Ex.PW5/A Rukka/endorsement PW-5 ASI Kamal Ram
Ex.PW5/B FIR PW-5 ASI Kamal Ram
Ex.PW5/C Certification u/s. 65-B of PW-5 ASI Kamal Ram
the Indian Evidence Act
qua genuineness of the FIR
Ex.PW6/A Notice u/s. 91/101 given to PW-6 Shri Sanjeev
President of RWA by the Kumar
IO
Ex.PW6/B Seizure memo of DVR, one PW-6 Shri Sanjeev
adopter and 12 connecting Kumar
lead.
Ex.PW6/C Certification u/s. 65-B of PW-6 Shri Sanjeev
the Indian Evidence Act Kumar
qua genuineness of the
DVR.
Ex.PW7/A Application for seeking PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
subsequent opinion on Barma
weapon of offence
Ex.PW7/B Copy of FIR PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
Barma
Ex.PW7/B Copy of recovery memo of PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
iron rod. Barma
Ex.PW7/D Copy of MLC of injured PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
Dharamendra Kumar. Barma
Ex.PW7/E Document regarding nature PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
of injury as simple. Barma
Ex.PW7/F Copy of discharge PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
summary. Barma
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15 16:15:54 +0530 SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 6 of 33 Ex.PW7/G Diagram of examined PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb weapon. Barma Ex.PW7/H Detailed subsequent PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb opinion dated 08.08.2016. Barma Ex.PW7/I Road certificate given by PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb the IO to the concerned Barma doctor. Ex.PW8/A OPD card pertaining to PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar Sonu s/o Shri Nathu Singh Ex.PW8/B Fitness certificate qua Sonu. PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar Ex.PW8/C Certificate u/s. 65-B of the PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar Indian Evidence Act qua non conducting of x-ray. Ex.PW8/D Reply of the concerned PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar doctor to notice u/s. 160/91 Cr.PC. Ex.PW8/E Application for preservation PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar of medical records. Ex.PW8/P-1 Medical records of accused PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar Sonu. Ex.PW8/F Seizure memo of medical PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar record. Ex.PW9/A Rukka/endorsement PW-9 SI Raj Kumar Ex.PW9/B Seizure memo of clothes of PW-9 SI Raj Kumar injured and his blood sample Ex.PW9/C Disclosure statement of PW-9 SI Raj Kumar accused Rajeev Khanna Ex.PW9/D Arrest memo of accused PW-9 SI Raj Kumar Sanjay Solanki Ex.PW9/E Disclosure statement of PW-9 SI Raj Kumar accused of accused Sanjay Solanki Ex.PW9/F Seizure memo of iron rod. PW-9 SI Raj Kumar Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date: 2026.04.15 16:16:07 +0530 SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 7 of 33 Ex.PW9/G Site plan of recovery of iron PW-9 SI Raj Kumar rod. Ex.PW9/H RC qua sending i.e. clothes PW-9 SI Raj Kumar of injured, his blood sample and sample seal to FSL. Ex.PW11/A FSL report regarding PW-11 Shri Vivek examination of hard disc. Kumar, Jr. Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner. Ex.PW12/P-1 Statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of PW-12 Shri Rajesh Shri Rajesh Kumar Kumar Ex.PW13/A FSL report qua blood PW-13 Shri Indresh sample of the injured Kumar Mishra, Asst. Director (Biology) Ex.PW14/A Acknowledgment qua PW -14 HC Chetram depositing the exhibits to FSL Ex.PW15/A Acknowledgment receipt PW-15 Ct. Rajeev qua depositing the exhibits to FSL Ex.PW17/A MLC of injured PW-17 Dr. Deepak Vats. Ex.PW19/A Reply to the notice u/s. 91 PW-19 Shri Jairam, Cr.PC Alternate Nodal Officer Ex.PW19/B Certificate u/s. 65-B of the PW-19 Shri Jairam, Indian Evidence Act. Alternate Nodal Officer Ex.PW19/C CAF along with supporting PW-19 Shri Jairam,
documents of mobile no. Alternate Nodal Officer
8447581447.
Ex.PW19/D CDR of mobile no. PW-19 Shri Jairam,
8447581447. Alternate Nodal Officer
Ex.PW19/E Cell ID chart of mobile no. PW-19 Shri Jairam,
8447581447. Alternate Nodal Officer
Ex.PW20/B Supplementary charge- PW-20 Retd. SI
sheet. Mahender Singh
Ex.PW21/A Final charge-sheet PW-21 Inspector Ranbir
Singh.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:16:14
+0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 8 of 33
Ex.PW22/A Entry no. 3555 of register PW-22 ASI Sunil
no. 19
Ex.PW22/B Entry no. 3586 of register PW-22 ASI Sunil
no. 19
List of Material Objects.
Material Description of exhibit Proved by / attested by
object no.
Ex.P-1 Shirt of the complainant. PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
Kumar Singh
Ex.P-2 Stole of wife of the PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
complainant. Kumar Singh
Ex.P-3 Gamcha which was PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
wrapped on wounds of the Kumar Singh
complainant.
Ex.P-4 Vest of the complainant. PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
Kumar Singh
Ex.P-5 Jeans of the complainant. PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
Kumar Singh
Ex.P-6 Iron rod PW-3 Mrs. Himanshi
Ex.P-7 DVR PW-6 Shri Sanjeev Kumar
Ex.P-8 Adopter PW-6 Shri Sanjeev Kumar
Ex.P-9 12 connecting leads PW-6 Shri Sanjeev Kumar
(colly.)
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the
incriminating material were put to both the accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused Rajeev Khanna pleaded innocence and
stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case; that he
made complaint against the complainant regarding encroachment on
public property and in revenge thereof, he has filed the false complaint
against him. Accused Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu pleaded innocence and
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:16:24
+0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 9 of 33
stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Both the
accused persons opted to lead defence evidence and matter was fixed for
defence evidence.
Defence Evidence
7. In their defence, accused Rajeev Khanna examined himself as
DW-1 and Shri Piyush Tiwari as DW-2. They were cross examined by
Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State.
ARGUMENTS
8. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW-1/injured
and PW-3 i.e. eye-witness have fully supported the case of the
Prosecution and they categorically explained the role of both the accused
persons and also disclosed about the nature of weapon of offence; that
MLC of the complainant also supported the testimonies of the aforesaid
witnesses; that PW-2 Shri Rajesh Kumar, who is an independent eye
witness of the case, has also supported the testimonies of PW-1 and
PW-2; that testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are fully reliable as no
material contradiction or omission has been established by the Ld.
defence counsel as per the Evidence Act; that weapon of offence i.e. rod
has been recovered at the instance of accused Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu
which completed the chain of the Prosecution story; that the manner of
causing injuries to the complainant have also been explained by the
public witnesses; that the Ld. Defence counsel is also not able to
establish the cause of false implication of the accused persons. In view
of the same it has been prayed that both the accused should be convicted
for the offence charged. Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:16:29
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 10 of 33
8.1 Per contra it was argued by the ld. defence counsel for
accused persons that the alleged incident never took place and accused
have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant and
his other associates who were running Residents Welfare Association;
that no quarrel or no injuries were caused to the complainant at the
relevant date and time; that accused made complaint against RWA for
illegal activities carried on by them ; that complainant might have
suffered some injury on his own due to some accident and would have
taken to hospital but soon thereafter he cooked up a story in order to
falsely implicate the accused for the said injuries; that testimonies of the
witnesses are ridden with glaring and material contradictions exhibiting
the falsehood of the evidence; that PW-1 has deposed that there were no
other customer at the shop whereas PW-2 has deposed that there were
few customers and PW-3 has deposed that there were lots of customers
at the shop at the relevant time; that PW-2 Rajesh Kumar Singh has
deposed that on hearing some screams he ran towards the shop and saw
accused no. 2 giving 2-3 blows on the head of PW-1 whereas PW-3 Ms.
Himanshi has deposed that by the time PW-2 came, her husband had
already been assaulted with rod; that PW-1 has deposed that PW-2
shifted him to the hospital whereas PW-2 has deposed that PW-1 was
shifted to the hospital in the car of PW-10 Shri Deepak Gandhi; that
PW-10 never saw the incident; that no independent witness joined the
proceedings at the time of arrest of accused persons; that medical
document shows that complainant had informed the doctor that injuries
were caused by some unknown persons; that the testimonies of the
witnesses are doubtful and unreliable; that recovery of alleged weapon
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:16:34
+0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 11 of 33
of offence is also doubtful and unreliable since police brought accused
Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu to join the proceedings wherein alleged iron rod
was recovered from near the outer wall of DDA opposite the railway
line; that no public witness was joined during the investigation nor was
examined before the Court; that the recordings of CCTV has been
tempered by the RWA office bearers and no recording was found on the
said hard disc by the FSL; that the recordings were handed over to the
IO after much delay; that the defence evidence has been led and DW-2
has clearly stated that there was no such incident and there has been no
dent in the said testimony; that the guilt of the accused needs to be
proved beyond any reasonable doubt and in the criminal trial, the burden
to prove the defence is very light on the accused persons; that the
Prosecution has totally failed to establish a complete and credible chain
of evidence and has further failed to lead cogent and convincing
evidence to prove that complainant had sustained injuries due to assault
by the accused the accused Rajeev Khanna; that the alleged weapon of
offence i.e. some article/weight has not been recovered hence the link
between the accused and the injury has not been established; that
accused Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu has neither worked with accused Rajeev
Khanna nor caused any injury to the injured/complainant in any manner;
that accused Sanjay was working as pump operator in the society on the
muster role of private contractor M/s. Satyam Enterprises which fact has
also came on record and established during addressing arguments on his
anticipatory bail; that there is no material contradictions in the
deposition of the public witnesses; that the MLC does not support the
deposition of the witnesses as well as original complaint; that IO/PW-9
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:16:42 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 12 of 33
has deposed that length of recovered iron rod was about 22.5 cm
whereas other Prosecution witnesses have stated that the length of the
same was found 2 feet; that the recovered rod does not support the
Prosecution story and connect the accused with the offence; that the said
rod was planted upon the accused in order to falsely implicate him; that
accused persons have examined two witnesses to establish their defence;
that no such incident ever took place. In view of the same it has been
prayed that accused Rajeev Khanna and Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu be
acquitted of the offences charged.
9. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld.
counsel for the accused and perused the record.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
10. The accused is facing trial for the offence punishable u/s.
308/34 IPC. Section 308 IPC deals with attempt to commit culpable
homicide. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of
an offence u/s. 308 IPC are:-
(1) That the accused did an act.
(2) That it was done:-
(i) with the intention, or
(ii) with the knowledge;
(a) of causing death;
(b) causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the
harm was attempted to be caused; or
(c) of causing bodily injury to a person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted would have been
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death; or Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:16:47
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 13 of 33
(d) that the act if completed would have been so
imminently dangerous that it would have in all
probability caused death or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death; that the act attempted was
committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death of such injury as aforesaid;
To which may be added the following aggravating circumstances:
(3) That the act caused hurt to the person by the act aforesaid.
And if (3) is proved, proof of the following further aggravating
circumstance is admissible;
(4) That the accused was then under sentence of imprisonment
for life.
10.1 The case of Prosecution is that both accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention assaulted the complainant Shri
Dharamendra Kumar Singh in the manner that accused Rajeev Khanna
exhorted and accused Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu inflicted rod blows on
Dharamender’s head and thereafter accused Rajeev Khanna assaulted
him with some heavy object causing multiple injuries to him with an
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act
they had caused his death, they would have been guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. In order to prove its case the
Prosecution has examined the complainant/injured Dharamendra Kumar
Singh, eye witnesses Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh and Smt. Himanshi.
10.2 It is well settled law that while appreciating the evidence of
witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of a witness read as
a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found, it
is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more
particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw backs and infirmities
pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:16:53
+0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 14 of 33
whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence. Minor
discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper
technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there
from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter
should not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole
(Reliance placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
State of UP vs Krishna Master & Ors, decided on 03/08/2010 in Crl.
Appeal No. 1180/2004).
OCULAR EVIDENCE
11. I now proceed to analyse the testimonies of eye
witnesses/injured in the present case. Complainant/injured Shri
Dharamendra Kumar Singh who is the star witness of the case was
examined as PW-1 and he has deposed that ” on 25.10.2015 at about
6.30 pm he along with his wife Smt. Himanshi Singh went to the
grocery shop of accused Rajeev Khanna which was within the campus
of DDA Flats; that 2-3 days prior to the incident, the milk purchased by
him from accused Rajeev Khanna used to turn sour; that on 25.10.2015
when he went to the shop of accused Rajeev Khanna, he asked him to
take care of goods sold by him as milk had been turning sour for past 2-
3 days; that on this, accused Rajeev Khanna used filthy language telling
him not to purchase grocery from his shop if he had complaints; that
besides that filthy language, accused Rajeev Khanna commented “kahan
kahan se bihari uth ke chale aate hain, bhag ja yahan se”; that his wife
suggested that they should not get into any dialogue with accused; that
when he turned around to return home, accused Rajeev Khanna caught
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:16:58
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 15 of 33
hold of his hand from inside the counter and at that time there were two
servants inside the counter; that one of those servants was accused Sonu
and he did not remember the name of the other servant; that after
catching hold of his hand, accused Rajeev Khanna exhorted to teach him
lesson; that accused Rajeev Khanna stated “Bihari ko jaan se maro”; that
accused Sonu brought about 2 feet long iron rod and hit the same on his
head 2-3 times due to which he became unconscious for a short while
and his wife started screaming; that thereafter his wife told him that
accused Rajeev Khanna came out of the shop and hit some article on left
side of his face; that hearing our screams, some public persons reached
there and someone suggested to call PCR; that his wife called PCR and
in the meanwhile, one Shri Rajesh came from the side of park and
shifted him to hospital in his private vehicle when PCR did not reach for
10-15 minutes.” He was cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
11.1 Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh was examined as PW-2 and he has
deposed that “about 2-3 years ago he used to reside at Flat no. 110,
DDA LIG Flats, Molar Band, Badarpur, New Delhi; that on or around
25.10.2015 present incident took place and at that time he was Secretary
of Residents Welfare Association; that it was exactly on 25.10.2015 at
about 6.30 pm he was taking walk in the park opposite the shop of
accused Rajeev Khanna; that on hearing some screams, he looked
towards shop of accused Rajeev Khanna and ran towards the same; that
he saw accused Rajeev Khanna was holding Shri Dharmendra who was
one of the tenants in DDA Flats; that one of the servants of accused
Rajeev Khanna brought a rod and gave 2-3 blows on head of Shri
Dharmendra due to which he started bleeding and fell down; that wife of
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:17:05 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 16 of 33
Dharmendra was screaming loudly; that he helped Dharmendra and told
accused Rajeev Khanna that he should not have done this; that accused
Rajeev Khanna started abusing Dharmendra as well as himself and said
to him “main isko jaan se maar dalunga, tu kya kar lega?”; that accused
Rajeev Khanna started quarreling with him also; that in the meanwhile,
accused Rajeev Khanna went inside the shop and brought some article
which was perhaps a measuring weight and hit the same on left side of
face of Dharmendra; that lot of public gathered there and extricated
them; that someone called PCR but before PCR could reach, one Mr.
Gandhi who also is a resident of DDA Flats was coming in his car and
he shifted Dharmendra in his car to Apollo hospital. ” He was cross
examined by the Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons.
11.2 Ms. Himanshi was examined as PW-3 and she has deposed
that “on 25.10.2015 she along with her family was residing in H. No.
H-402, DDA Flats, Molar Band, Badarpur, New Delhi; that on
25.10.2015 at about 6.30 pm, she along with her husband went to the
shop of accused Rajeev Khanna which is within the campus of DDA
LIG Flats; that for past 2-3 days, the milk bought by them from the shop
of accused Rajeev Khanna used to turn sour and she had been
complaining about this to her husband; that her husband told accused
Rajeev Khanna that milk bought by them from his shop for past 2-3
days had been turning sour so he should look into it; that on this accused
Rajeev Khanna started abusing them and she asked her husband to
leave his shop; that by the time they were about return accused Rajeev
Khanna from inside the counter caught hold of hand of her husband; that
thereafter accused Rajeev Khanna exhorted his servant Sonu, calling
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:17:11 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 17 of 33
him upon to kill her husband; that Rajeev Khanna said “Bihariyon
tumhari aukat dikhate hain, tumhe aaj jaan se hi maar donga”; that Sonu
brought rod and gave 2-3 blows of rod on the head of her husband due
to which he fell down; that while she was trying to lift her husband, one
Rajesh came running from the side of park and when she along with
Rajesh were able to lift her husband, accused Rajeev Khanna came out
of his shop carrying some heavy article in his hand and hit the same on
jaw of her husband; that they somehow extricated her husband from
accused; that she called PCR but when police did not reach soon, they
shifted her husband in a car to the Apollo hospital of some Mr. Gandhi;
that her husband was admitted in the hospital. ” She was cross examined
by the Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons.
11.3 With regard to evidentiary value to be attached to testimony
of an injured witness, it would be worthwhile to consider the principles
of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In Abdul Sayeed v. State
of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 the Hon’ble Supreme court made the
following observations:
“Injured witness
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the
evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the
course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed
by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has
himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such
a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he
is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his
presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare
his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate
someone. “Convincing evidence is required to discredit an
injured witness.” Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:17:35
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 18 of 33
11.4 In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court also reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to
the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments
and noted the decision in Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of
Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] wherein it
was held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon
unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis
of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his
presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he
suffered the injury during the said incident . The Hon’ble Supreme Court
further observed as follows:
“30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect
that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a
special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact
that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his
presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness
will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished
merely to falsely implicate a third party for the
commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are
strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies therein. ”
11.5 The testimony of the injured has to be examined in light of the
law discussed hereinabove. Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act
with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if
by that act, he caused death he would be guilty culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. The act in question as deposed by the
complainant/injured is the quarrel on the trivial issue of milk purchased
by him from the shop of the accused Rajeev KhannaDigitally
getting sour.
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:17:42
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 19 of 33
Complainant/PW-1 has deposed that he along with his wife Smt.
Himanshi went to the shop of accused Rajeev Khanna on the day of
incident and told him that the milk purchased from his shop is turning
sour and advised him to keep good quality articles. Instead of accepting
the things, accused Rajeev Khanna passed some comments regarding his
domicile State and asked him to go away from there. Not only that
accused Rajeev Khanna caught hold of his hand and one of his servants
on his command attacked him with two feet long iron rod. That was not
enough since accused Rajeev Khanna, as alleged, too hit him with some
article on his face. The abovesaid chronology of events makes me to
ponder what was the trigger point which leads to said bad situation or
the other presumption can be that nothing at all, as deposed by the
complainant, happened and it was all a made up story. In order to come
to conclusion whether anything of kind, as deposed by the complainant,
happened or it was all a cooked up story, let’s start from the beginning.
11.6 Complainant i.e. PW-1 has deposed that he was assaulted by
the accused persons in front of his shop which is considered to be inbuilt
guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime. That shop was located in
the E-block as evident from the site plan Ex.PW3/A. This deposition of
complainant is in complete contradiction with other public witness i.e.
PW-10 Shri Deepak Gandhi who has deposed that while he was present
in his house at D Block ” he heard noise of injured Dharamendra who
was crying in the staircase of his house” . In his words “He know
Dharmender who used to reside in G-Block and he used to reside in D-
Block, in Ayush Enclave, DDA LIG Flats, nearby Gautam Puri, New
Delhi; earlier, I was residing at House No. D-312, 3rd Floor, LIG DDA
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:17:52 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 20 of 33
Flats, Molarband Extn., New Delhi; that on 25.10.2015 he was present
in his house at 3rd floor; that he heard a noise of Sh. Dharmender and he
was crying in the staircase of his house.”
11.7 There emerges another contradiction in the testimony of PW-1
complainant who has deposed that he was shifted to the hospital by Shri
Rajesh in his private vehicle whereas PW-10 Shri Deepak Gandhi has
deposed that it was he who shifted the complainant to the Apollo
Hospital in his car. In the words of complainant i.e. PW-1 ” in the
meanwhile when PCR did not reach for 10-15 minutes, one Shri Rajesh
came from the side of park and shifted him to hospital in his private
vehicle.” In the words of PW-10 “He immediately came down from his
flat and saw that Dharmender was profusely bleeding from his head and
he immediately took him to Apollo Hospital by his car .” The fact that
complainant was in fact admitted by PW-10 Shri Deepak Gandhi in the
hospital has also been confirmed by his wife who was examined as
PW-3 Smt. Himanshi. In her words ” she called PCR but when police did
not reach soon, they shifted her husband in a car to the Apollo hospital
and that car was of some Mr. Gandhi; that her husband was admitted in
the hospital.”
11.8 PW-10 Shri Deepak Gandhi has deposed that he heard noise
of Dharamendra who was crying in the staircase of his house and this
deposition of his is going in consonance with the witness produced by
accused in defence i.e. DW-2 Shri Piyush Tiwari. He has deposed that
“In the year 2015 he was residing in Flat No. E-207, Block-E, DDA LIG
Flats, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi; that on 25.10.2015 he was
walking in the evening in front of the park situated in his society; that he
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:18:00
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 21 of 33
noticed that music was playing there in D-Block of the society in
between 06.30 pm to 07.00 pm; that he heard some noise and thereafter
he rushed to the gathering where he saw some residents were taking one
Mr. Dharmender from the staircase of D-Block who had sustained
injury, perhaps in the head; that thereafter, he has seen one Mr. Deepak
Gandhi who shifted the injured in a car and taken him to outside the
society.”
11.9 The fact that complainant was taken to the hospital by Mr.
Deepak Gandhi i.e. PW-10 stands fortified from his MLC Ex.PW17/A.
The MLC describes that the injured was brought by his wife and a
neighbour Mr. Deepak. The MLC further fortifies the fact that the
injuries in question suffered by the complainant were not caused by the
accused persons since MLC gave alleged history of assault by some
unknown persons. It is not the case of the complainant nor of his wife
that the assailants were strangers to them since both of them have
deposed specifically against the accused persons then how the assailants
were described as “unknown persons” in the MLC of the
complainant/injured. All the above said in a way lends credence to the
defence of the accused that the present case has been registered out of
vengeance since accused Rajeev Khanna had lodged complaint against
him for carrying out the illegal construction. This defence in fact has
been admitted by one of the Prosecution’s star witness i.e. PW-2 Shri
Rajesh Kumar Singh. He has admitted in his cross examination that
accused Rajeev Khanna started his shop illegally and hence entire RWA
Digitally
had complaint against him. signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:18:05
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 22 of 33
11.10 Moving further the case of the Prosecution is that the
complainant was hit with iron rod by one of the servants of the accused
Rajeev Khanna. Complainant has deposed that he was hit by an iron rod
by one of the servants of the accused Rajeev Khanna and PW-2 Shri
Rajesh Kumar Singh has deposed that Dharamendra i.e.
complainant/PW-1 started bleeding due to assault and fell down and
further from the photographs of the complainant annexed in the present
case, it is quite apparent that complainant bled profusely but no blood
spots were found by the Investigating Officer at the spot since IO / PW-9
SI Rajeev Kumar has admitted during cross examination that he did not
get any chance prints as there was no blood at the spot. Further he has
stated in his examination in chief that ” he had inspected the spot but no
clue come forward.” The fact that no blood stains were found on the
place of incident further fortifies the conclusion that no assault of kind as
deposed by the complainant or his wife PW-3 Smt. Himanshi or PW-2
Shri Rajesh Singh happened. Secondly, complainant has deposed that
the iron rod was about two feet long. In his words ” Accused Sonu
brought about 2 feet long iron rod and hit the same on his head 2-3 times
due to which he became unconscious for a short while and his wife
started screaming.” However that two feet iron rod became at about
22.25 cm by the time it was recovered by the IO during the investigation
which cast doubt on its credibility. In the words of IO/SI Rajeev Kumar
i.e. PW-9 that”in pursuance of disclosure statement accused Sanjay
Solanki led them behind DDA Flat near Railway Line Molar Band to
recover weapon of offence which had been used in crime by him and on
reaching behind the DDA Flat accused Sanjay Solanki Digitally
picked up iron
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:18:22
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 23 of 33
rod length about 22.5 cm from the bushes upon which Tata Tiscon was
engraved.”
11.11 There is one more circumstance which pointed out the false
implication of the accused persons in the present case. Admittedly the
CCTV cameras were installed in the campus and the CCTV footages
were seized during the investigation. The person who handed over the
CCTV footage to the IO during the investigations has been examined as
PW-6 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and he has deposed that ” In the year
2015 and before he was General Secretary of RWA. Molarband; that on
10.11.2015, their President Sh. Uday Chand Jha have received notice
under Section 91/101 Cr.P.C. issued by ASI Raj Kumar to deliver the
DVR System to police as same was required for the investigation of this
case.” The seized DVR were sent to the FSL for their scientific
examination but quite amazingly no video recording of dated 25.10.2015
i.e. date of incident could be retrieved from the same. The FSL expert
was examined as PW-11 Shri Vivek Kumar and he has deposed that
“On 25.07.2016 one sealed parcel with specimen seal were received in
their office; that the seals on the exhibit were intact and they were tallied
with the specimen seal impression; that on opening the said exhibit it
was found one CP plus Digital Video Recorder which was marked as
Mark DVR-I and its Seagate made Hard Disc Drive Mark HDD-1; that
on examination of the said exhibits, no video recording of dated
25.10.2015 could be retrieved from the above said Ex. HDD-1 and he
prepared his report which is Ex.PW-11/A .”
11.12 The fact that no data of the date of incident could be retrieved
from the seized DVR indicates towards its tempering. In fact it was
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:18:30
+0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 24 of 33
deposed by the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-9 SI Rajeev Kumar that
CCTV cameras were tempered due to which the incident was not
captured in the DVR. PW-9 has deposed that ” During the course of
investigation he had made search of scientific evidence; that CCTV
cameras were installed on the main road; that he visited the security
room and checked the DVR in connection with the incident; that some
one had tampered with the DVR and incident was not captured in the
DVR.” Moreover PW-2 Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh did not specifically
denied that the CCTV were not tempered since he has stated in his cross
examination that he is not aware whether any tempering of CCTV
footage was done in the period from date of incident to the date of
seizure. In view of the same major contradictions are found in the
testimonies of the witnesses which has made the story of Prosecution
unreliable.
11.13 It is settled proposition of law that in case there are minor
contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to
be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements and it is
likely to be so as the statement in the court is recorded after an
inordinate delay. In case the contradictions are so material that the same
go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the
prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility
of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire
confidence” Reliance placed on Judgment title “Tehsildar Singh & Anr.
v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012”
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is hereby held that
Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:19:04
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 25 of 33
the offence punishable under section 308/34 IPC. Henceforth accused
Rajeev Khanna and Sanjay Solanki @ Sonu are hereby acquitteded of
offence punishable u/s. 308/34 IPC.
14.1 Let copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA,
South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi for necessary compliance.
Digitally
Typed to the direct dictation and signed by
GEETANJALI
announced in the open court GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
on this 15th day of April, 2026 16:19:10
+0530
(Geetanjali)
Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03
South East District,Saket Courts
New Delhi/15.04.2026Annexure: Appendix in compliance of Judgement passed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2973/2023 titled as “Manojbhai
Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat“.
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 26 of 33
Appendix
CHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Name of the Description.
witness no. witness
PW-1 Shri He is the complainant/injured in the
Dharamendra present case.
Kumar Singh
PW-2 Shri Rajesh He is the eye witness of the present
Kumar Singh incident.
PW-3 Smt. Himanshi She is the wife of the complainant
and also the eye witness to the
present incident.
PW-4 PW-4 ASI Bir He recorded the DD in the present
Singh matter regarding the admission of
injured in Apollo hospital.
PW-5 ASI Kamal Ram He recorded the FIR in the present
case.
PW-6 Shri Sanjeev He is the General Secretary of
Kumar Yadav RWA, Molarband and handed over
the DVR to the police.
PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb She has proved the detailed
Barma subsequent opinion dated
08.08.2016 regarding the weapon of
offence.
PW-8 Dr. Krishan He medically examined accused
Avtar Sonu.
PW-9 SI Raj Kumar He is the first IO of the case.
PW-10 Shri Deepak He took the injured/complainant to
Apollo Hospital in his car.
Gandhi
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:19:15
+0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 27 of 33
PW-11 Shri Vivek He is the expert witness who
Kumar, Jr. examined the DVR in question and
Forensic / prepared the detailed report qua the
Assistant same.
Chemical
Examiner
PW-12 Shri Rajesh He identified accused Sonu @
Kumar Sanjay Kumar.
PW-13 Shri Indresh He examined the exhibits received
Kumar Mishra, in the office of FSL and prepared
Assistant detailed report qua the same.
Director
(Biology), FSL
PW-14 HC Chetram He deposited the exhibits in the
FSL for examination.
PW-15 HC Rajeev He deposited the blood samples and
clothes in the FSL for examination.
PW-16 Ct. Amit He joined the IO during the
investigations.
PW-17 Dr. Deepak Vats He has proved the opinion given on
the MLC of injured Dharamendra
Kumar.
PW-18 Ct. Hari Chand He joined the IO during the
investigations.
PW-19 Shri Jairam He is alternate Nodal Officer who
proved the CAF and CDR of
mobile no. 8447581447 in the name
of Sanjay Solanki.
PW-20 Retd. SI He is also the IO who filed the
Mahender Singh supplementary chargesheet on
receipt of FSL report.
PW-21 Inspector Ranbir He is the last IO and filed the final
Singh chargesheet before the Court.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:19:22
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 28 of 33
PW-22 ASI Sunil He deposited the case property in
malkhana handed over by the IO,
deposited the same in FSL against
acknowledgment and made entries
qua the same in Register no. 19.
PW-23 HC Om Prakash He was present at the PS when Shri
Sanjeev came to deposit the DVR,
one adapter and connecting leads
which were sealed and seized by
the IO.
Documents produced on behalf of the Prosecution.
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ attested by
Ex.PW1/1 Complaint PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
Kumar Singh
Ex.PW3/1 Site plan PW-3 Smt. HimanshiEx.PW3/2 Arrest memo of accused PW-3 Smt. Himanshi
Rajeev Khanna
Ex.PW3/3 Personal search memo of PW-3 Smt. Himanshi
accused Rajeev Khanna
Ex.PW4/A DD entry no. 44-A PW-4 ASI Bir Singh
regarding admission of
injured Dharamendra at
Apollo Hospital
Ex.PW5/A Rukka/endorsement PW-5 ASI Kamal Ram
Ex.PW5/B FIR PW-5 ASI Kamal Ram
Ex.PW5/C Certification u/s. 65-B of PW-5 ASI Kamal Ram
the Indian Evidence Act
qua genuineness of the FIR
Ex.PW6/A Notice u/s. 91/101 given to PW-6 Shri Sanjeev
President of RWA by the Kumar
IO
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:19:32 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 29 of 33
Ex.PW6/B Seizure memo of DVR, one PW-6 Shri Sanjeev
adopter and 12 connecting Kumar
lead.
Ex.PW6/C Certification u/s. 65-B of PW-6 Shri Sanjeev
the Indian Evidence Act Kumar
qua genuineness of the
DVR.
Ex.PW7/A Application for seeking PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
subsequent opinion on Barma
weapon of offence
Ex.PW7/B Copy of FIR PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
Barma
Ex.PW7/B Copy of recovery memo of PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
iron rod. Barma
Ex.PW7/D Copy of MLC of injured PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
Dharamendra Kumar. Barma
Ex.PW7/E Document regarding nature PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
of injury as simple. Barma
Ex.PW7/F Copy of discharge PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
summary. Barma
Ex.PW7/G Diagram of examined PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
weapon. Barma
Ex.PW7/H Detailed subsequent PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
opinion dated 08.08.2016. Barma
Ex.PW7/I Road certificate given by PW-7 Dr. Antara Deb
the IO to the concerned Barma
doctor.
Ex.PW8/A OPD card pertaining to PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar
Sonu s/o Shri Nathu Singh
Ex.PW8/B Fitness certificate qua Sonu. PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar
Ex.PW8/C Certificate u/s. 65-B of the PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar
Indian Evidence Act qua
non conducting of x-ray.
Ex.PW8/D Reply of the concerned PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar
doctor to notice u/s. 160/91
Cr.PC.
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:19:38 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 30 of 33
Ex.PW8/E Application for preservation PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar
of medical records.
Ex.PW8/P-1 Medical records of accused PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar
Sonu.
Ex.PW8/F Seizure memo of medical PW-8 Dr. Krishan Avtar
record.
Ex.PW9/A Rukka/endorsement PW-9 SI Raj Kumar
Ex.PW9/B Seizure memo of clothes of PW-9 SI Raj Kumar
injured and his blood
sample
Ex.PW9/C Disclosure statement of PW-9 SI Raj Kumar
accused Rajeev Khanna
Ex.PW9/D Arrest memo of accused PW-9 SI Raj Kumar
Sanjay Solanki
Ex.PW9/E Disclosure statement of PW-9 SI Raj Kumar
accused of accused Sanjay
Solanki
Ex.PW9/F Seizure memo of iron rod. PW-9 SI Raj Kumar
Ex.PW9/G Site plan of recovery of iron PW-9 SI Raj Kumar
rod.
Ex.PW9/H RC qua sending i.e. clothes PW-9 SI Raj Kumar
of injured, his blood sample
and sample seal to FSL.
Ex.PW11/A FSL report regarding PW-11 Shri Vivek
examination of hard disc. Kumar, Jr.
Forensic/Assistant
Chemical Examiner.
Ex.PW12/P-1 Statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of PW-12 Shri Rajesh Shri Rajesh Kumar Kumar Ex.PW13/A FSL report qua blood PW-13 Shri Indresh sample of the injured Kumar Mishra, Asst. Director (Biology) Ex.PW14/A Acknowledgment qua PW -14 HC Chetram depositing the exhibits to FSL Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date: 2026.04.15 16:19:46 +0530 SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 31 of 33 Ex.PW15/A Acknowledgment receipt PW-15 Ct. Rajeev qua depositing the exhibits to FSL Ex.PW17/A MLC of injured PW-17 Dr. Deepak Vats. Ex.PW19/A Reply to the notice u/s. 91 PW-19 Shri Jairam, Cr.PC Alternate Nodal Officer Ex.PW19/B Certificate u/s. 65-B of the PW-19 Shri Jairam, Indian Evidence Act. Alternate Nodal Officer Ex.PW19/C CAF along with supporting PW-19 Shri Jairam,
documents of mobile no. Alternate Nodal Officer
8447581447.
Ex.PW19/D CDR of mobile no. PW-19 Shri Jairam,
8447581447. Alternate Nodal Officer
Ex.PW19/E Cell ID chart of mobile no. PW-19 Shri Jairam,
8447581447. Alternate Nodal Officer
Ex.PW20/B Supplementary charge- PW-20 Retd. SI
sheet. Mahender Singh
Ex.PW21/A Final charge-sheet PW-21 Inspector Ranbir
Singh.
Ex.PW22/A Entry no. 3555 of register PW-22 ASI Sunil
no. 19
Ex.PW22/B Entry no. 3586 of register PW-22 ASI Sunil
no. 19
List of Material Objects.
Material Description of exhibit Proved by / attested by
object no.
Ex.P-1 Shirt of the complainant. PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
Kumar Singh
Ex.P-2 Stole of wife of the PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
complainant. Kumar Singh
Ex.P-3 Gamcha which was PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
wrapped on wounds of the Kumar Singh
complainant.
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:20:00 +0530
SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 32 of 33
Ex.P-4 Vest of the complainant. PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
Kumar Singh
Ex.P-5 Jeans of the complainant. PW-1 Shri Dharamendra
Kumar Singh
Ex.P-6 Iron rod PW-3 Mrs. Himanshi
Ex.P-7 DVR PW-6 Shri Sanjeev Kumar
Ex.P-8 Adopter PW-6 Shri Sanjeev Kumar
Ex.P-9 12 connecting leads PW-6 Shri Sanjeev Kumar
(colly.)
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.15
16:20:09
+0530SC no. 293/2017 FIR No.672/2015, PS. Badarpur
State Vs. Rajeev Khanna & Anr. Page no. 33 of 33