Delhi District Court
State vs Vinay @ Champion Anr on 13 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 9279/18
CNR No. -: DLWT020018022016
FIR No. -: 669/2015
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 323/341/34IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
(1) VINAY @ CHAMPION
S/o Hanuman Sharan Pandey
R/o B-36, Near Shiv Mandir, Punjabi Basti,
Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
(2) NIRMALA PANDEY
W/o Hanuman Sharan Pandey
R/o B-36, Near Shiv Mandir, Punjabi Basti,
Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
.... Accused Persons
1. Name of Complainant :- Archita Devi
2. Name of Accused :- (1) Vinay @ Champion
Persons (2) Nirmala Pandey
3. Offence complained of :- 323/341/34 IPC
or proved
4. Plea of accused persons :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 19.09.2015
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 02.04.2016
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:07:46 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 1 of 44
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 09.02.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 13.04.2026
9. Final Order :- (1) Vinay @Champion:
Acquitted
(2) Nirmala Pandey:
Acquitted
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Mohd. Fahad, 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 Archita Devi
resides at H. No. B-245, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand
Parbat, Delhi, as a tenant and is a housewife. She is originally a
resident of Village Dhanwa, Police Station Kalwari, District
Basti, Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that on 18.09.2015, she was
returning home after filling a water gallon from the boring
(hand pump) and when she reached in front of the house of
accused Nirmala Pandey, a stray dog urinated on her water
gallon. It is further alleged that the complainant asked Nirmala
Pandey for some water to clean the gallon, but accused
Nirmala Pandey started quarrelling with her and at that time,
she quietly returned to her house. It is further alleged that on
19.09.2015, at about 1:00 PM, after having his meal, husband
of complainant namely Rupesh was going back to Karol Bagh
for his work and when he reached in front of the house of
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL 17:07:52
Date: 2026.04.13
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 2 of 44
accused Nirmala Pandey, she stopped his way and started
beating him. It is further alleged that on hearing her husband’s
voice, complainant reached the spot, and accused Nirmala
Pandey also called her son/accused Vinay @ Champion. It is
further alleged that accused Nirmala Pandey then left
complainant’s husband and caught hold of complainant, and
accused Vinay @ Champion has beaten both the complainant
and her husband with kicks and blows and thereafter, accused
Nirmala Pandey pushed the complainant, causing her to fall in
the street, due to which she sustained injuries. As such it is
alleged that the accused persons namely Vinay @ Champion
and Nirmala Pandey have committed the offences punishable
under sections 323/341/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred as IPC). Thereafter, a chargesheet was
filed against the accused persons after completion of
investigation on 02.04.2016 for the offences punishable U/s
323/341/34 of IPC.
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. Accused persons namely Vinay @ Champion, and
Nirmala Pandey entered appearance before this court and 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
323/341/34 of IPC against the accused persons namely Vinay
@ Champion and Nirmala Pandey on 16.10.2017. The accused Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:07:58 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 3 of 44
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 :- Archita Devi (Complainant)
PW2 :- Rupesh (Injured and husband of
complainant)
PW3 :- HC Balram (IO)
PW4 :- Ct. Anand Singh (Accompanied IO to the
spot)DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW 1/A :- Statement of complainant recorded by
police officials
Ex.PW 3/A :- Rukka
Ex. PW 3/B :- Arrest memo of accused person namely
Vinay @ Champion
Ex. PW 3/C :- Notice U/s 41A served to accused person
namely Nirmala Pandey
Ex. PW 3/D :- Site Plan
Ex. PW 3/E :- Disclosure statement of accused person
namely Vinay @ Champion
Ex. PW 3/F :- Disclosure statement of accused person
namely Nirmala PandeyADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC)
Ex. AD-1 :- 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. 31B dated 19.09.2015
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 4 of 44
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL 17:08:09
Date: 2026.04.13
+0530
Ex. AD-4 :- MLC No. 53621/15 dated 19.09.2015
prepared at Lady Hardinge Medical College
5. Ms. Archita Devi (PW-1) is the complainant in the
present case. She took the stand to depose that she is residing at
House No. B-245, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat,
Delhi along with her family and on 18.09.2015, she went to fetch
water from boring in one can. She further deposed that after
fetching water, she was coming back towards her house and when
she reached in front of house of accused Nirmala Pandey, one
street dog came and did bathroom on her water can. PW1 further
deposed that thereafter, she asked for some water from accused
Nirmala Pandey to clean the can but instead of giving water,
accused Nirmala Pandey started quarrelling with me and she came
at her house.
5.1. PW1 further deposed that on the next day i.e.,
19.09.2015 at about 1:00 P.M., her husband was going back to his
work after having lunch and when her husband reached in front of
house of accused Nirmala Pandey, she restrained the way of her
husband and started beating him. PW1 further deposed that on
hearing the screaming voice of her husband, she came out of her
house and reached outside the house of accused Nirmala Pandey.
She further deposed that on seeing her, accused Nirmala Pandey
called her son i.e. accused Vinay and after that, accused Nirmala
Pandey caught hold of her and accused Vinay started beating her
and her husband with a danda. PW1 further deposed that
somebody called at number 100 and she received injuries on her
head. PW1 further deposed that police officials reached at the spot Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:08:17 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 5 of 44
and took her and her husband to hospital. She further deposed that
police officials refused to record their statement and after their
treatment, police officials left them to their house. PW1 further
deposed that on the next day, police officials came at her house and
recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A and she had told to police
officials the place where the incident happened, who prepared site
plan at their instance. PW1 further correctly identified both the
accused persons, in the court.
5.2. In cross-examination, Ms. Archita Devi (PW
1) deposed that she does not remember the house number in which
she used to reside at the time of incident and they were tenant in
that house. PW1 further deposed that she does not remember the
name of the landlord as she is illiterate and she does not know
whether any rent agreement was executed between them and the
landlord but her husband must be aware about that. PW1 further
deposed that she does not remember the date of incident but it was
in September 2015 and the incident happened at around 01:00
P.M. PW1 further deposed that she went to fetch water at around
12:00 noon. She further deposed that the water started from 7:00 in
the morning till 6:00 in the night and the place from where they
fetch water is near to the Gopal Dairy. PW1 accepted the fact that
the timings to fetch water in their area is 6:00 to 7:00 in the
morning and 6:00 to 7:00 in the evening. She denied the suggestion
that no water supply comes at 01:00 P.M. PW1 further admitted
the fact that she resides in Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
PW1 admitted the fact that in their area there is shortage of water,
however she denied the suggestion that whenever there is shortage
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:08:23 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 6 of 44
of water in their area, supply of water from water tanker comes
from 6-7 in the morning and 6-7 in the evening.
5.3. PW1 further denied the suggestion that no
quarrel had taken place with her on the day when she went to fetch
water or that she had not called at number 100 when the quarrel
took place. She further deposed that the distance between PS and
her house was around 02 kilometres. PW1 further admitted the fact
that on the day of incident they had not gone to PS and on the day
of incident, she had not given any complaint. PW1 voluntarily
deposed that complaint was given on the next day at around 12:00
– 01:00 P.M. PW1 further admitted the fact that her husband used
to go office at around 9:00 A.M. and comes in the evening at 5:00
P.M. PW1 further admitted the fact that on the day of incident her
husband went to office at around 9:00 A.M. She voluntarily
deposed that on the day of incident her husband came back at
around 1:00 PM. PW1 further denied the suggestion that on the
day of incident, her husband came back on his usual timing i.e.,
5:00 P.M. PW1 further denied the suggestion that no quarrel had
taken place between her and accused persons. PW1 admitted the
fact that the public persons were going from the Gali where the
incident took place on the day of incident. She further deposed that
she had not called anybody for help when the accused persons
were beating her and her husband. She further deposed that
nobody came to help her and her husband. PW1 further deposed
that the landlord of their house is Jagdish. She denied the
suggestion that no quarrel had taken place her and accused persons
and that is the only reason why they had not called anybody for
help. PW1 further deposed that she does not know who had called ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13 17:08:30
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 7 of 44
at number 100 and Police officials had reached at the spot. PW1
further deposed that she does not know the names of those police
officials who came at the spot. PW1 further denied the suggestion
that she is deposing falsely. PW1 also denied the suggestion that
no beatings were given to her and her husband.
6. Rupesh (PW 2) is injured as well as husband of
complainant, who took the stand to depose that on 18.09.2015, his
wife went to fetch water from boring in one can and when she was
returning back, one street dog did bathroom on the water can and
thereafter when his wife asked for some water from accused
Nirmala Pandey, she started quarrelling with his wife. PW2 further
deposed that thereafter, his wife came back at the house. He further
deposed that on the next day i.e., 19.09.2015 at about 1:00 P.M.,
after having her lunch, he was going back to his work and when he
reached in front of house of accused Nirmala Pandey, accused
Nirmala Pandey restrained his way and started beating him. PW2
further deposed that accused Nirmala Pandey was sitting with a
pre-arranged plan and on hearing his screaming voice, his wife
came at the spot and tried to save him. PW2 further deposed that
thereafter, accused Nirmala Pandey called her son i.e., accused
Vinay and after that, accused Nirmala Pandey left him and caught
hold of his wife and accused Vinay started beating him and his
wife with a danda. PW3 further deposed that his wife sustained
injuries on her head and somebody called at number 100. PW2
further deposed that police officials reached at the spot and took
him and his wife to hospital. He further deposed that police
officials refused to record their statement and after their treatment,
police officials left them to their house. PW2 further deposed that
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13 17:08:37 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 8 of 44
on the next day, police officials came at his house and recorded
statement of his wife. He further deposed that police officials also
recorded his statement. PW2 has correctly identified both the
accused persons in the court.
6.1. In cross-examination, Rupesh (PW 2) has
deposed that he does not remember the day on which the incident
happened. He voluntarily stated the incident happened on 18th
September 2015. PW 2 further deposed that he resides at B-245,
Baljeet Nagar, Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi on rent. He
further deposed that the quarrel had taken place on the issue of
water and the incident happened in his presence at around 1:00
1:30 P.M. PW2 further deposed that the incident happened in one
Gali and people were passing from there. He further deposed that
the quarrel had taken place in front of their house and his landlord
namely Sh. Jagdish, was also present at the place where the
incident happened. PW 2 further deposed that he has his own
business and there are no fix timings for his office. He further
deposed that on the next day i.e., 19.09.2015, he did not go to my
office. He voluntarily deposed that the incident happened around
07 years back, so he does not remember whether he went to office
on that day or not. PW2 further denied the suggestion that he had
gone to his office on the day of incident. PW2 further admitted that
accused Nirmala Pandey had quarrelled with him and also gave
beatings to him. PW2 further deposed that he had not called at
number 100 at the time of incident. He voluntarily deposed that
one of his neighbours had called at 100 number. He further
deposed that he does not remember the name of that neighbour
who had called at 100 number and he did not call any person for
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:08:49 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 9 of 44
my help. PW2 further denied the suggestion that no quarrel had
taken place that is why he had not called at number 100 or called
anyone for help. He further deposed that his wife had saved me
from the clutches of accused persons. PW2 further denied the
suggestion that neither accused Nirmala Pandey nor accused
Vinay had quarrelled with him or that he was not given beatings by
accused persons. PW2 further deposed that he does not know the
name of police official who had visited the spot and police officials
recorded his statement. He further deposed that he does not
remember on which day or date, police officials recorded his
statement. PW2 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely.
7. HC Balram (PW 3) was examined in chief on
21.07.2022 wherein he sated on oath that on 19.09.2015, he was
posted as a HC at PS Anand Parbat and on that day, he was on
emergency duty from 08.00 AM to 08.00 PM. PW3 further
deposed that on that day, he received DD No. 21B regarding
quarrel at Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar. PW3 further deposed that
thereafter, he along with Ct. Anand reached at the spot and came to
know from public persons that injured were taken to hospital i.e.,
LHMC Hospital and thereafter, they reached at the hospital and
came to know that injured were discharged from the hospital after
treatment. PW3 further deposed that he collected MLC of the
injured Archita and visited her house and she denied to give her
statement as she is not feeling well. PW3 further deposed that he
kept DD pending and on next day, he came to house of the
complainant and recorded her statement about the incident and
prepared rukka Ex. PW3/A on the basis of said statement and got
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:09:01 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 10 of 44
FIR registered. PW3 further deposed that during investigation dt.
24.09.2015, he arrested accused Vinay @ Champion vide arrest
memo Ex. PW-3/B and served a notice u/s 41 A Cr.P.C. Ex.
PW3/C to co-accused namely Nirmla Pandey to join the
investigation. PW3 further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex.
PW3/D and recorded disclosure statement of the accused Vinay
Ex. PW-3/E and of co-accused Nirmala Pandey Ex. PW-3/F. PW3
further deposed that during investigation he recorded statement of
the witnesses. PW3 correctly identified both the witnesses in the
court.
7.1. In cross-examination, HC Balram (PW 3) has
deposed that IO received call at about 01:30-02:00 PM and he left
the police station at around 01:30 PM. PW3 further deposed that he
did not make any departure entry in the roznamcha register when
he left the police station. PW3 further deposed that when a call is
received in the police station, the entry of the same is done by the
IO. PW3 further deposed that DD No. 31-B was marked to him for
investigation. PW3 further deposed that in his examination-in-
chief, DD No is mentioned as 21-B but the same is not correct and
the correct DD entry is 31-B and it was inadvertently mentioned as
21-B. PW3 further deposed that whenever IO receive any DD
entry for investigation, he/she does not make any entry in the
roznamcha register. PW3 further deposed that he reached at the
spot at around 02:00 PM and the distance between the spot and
police station is around 1 km. PW3 admitted the facts that the area
is a thickly populated area and that when they reached at the spot,
they found gathering of many public persons. PW3 further
deposed that no notice was given to the public person to join the
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13 17:09:08
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 11 of 44
investigation. PW3 further deposed that he had inquired from the
neighbourhood but he does not know the name of the person from
whom he had inquired. PW3 further deposed that he did not find
any eye-witness at the spot. PW3 further deposed that he had
recorded the statement of complainant on 20.09.2015 at her house.
PW3 further deposed that he had not inquired from the
neighbourhood whether the house belongs to the complainant or
not. PW3 denied the suggestion that the complainant was not
residing at B-245, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. PW3
further deposed that he had not collected any document which
prove that the house belongs to the complainant. PW3 further
deposed that he does not remember whether he had made any entry
in the roznamcha register on 20.09.2015, before leaving the police
station. PW3 further deposed that he had made the arrival entry in
the roznamcha register on 20.09.2015. PW3 further deposed that
the complainant in her statement had stated that the actual incident
happened on 19.09.2015 and a little incident had also happened on
18.09.2015. PW3 further deposed that he did not receive any call
on 18.09.2015 with regard to the incident in present case. PW3
denied the suggestion that the quarrel had happened on 18.09.2015
or that the entire investigation conducted by him on 19.05.2015
and 20.09.2015. PW3 further denied the suggestion that he had not
conducted a fair investigation in the present case or the accused
persons are falsely implicated in the present case. PW3 further
deposed that there was no CCTV camera installed at the place of
incident. PW3 further denied the suggestion that he deliberately
did not obtain the CCTV footage of the spot. PW3 also denied the
Digitally signed
suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.13
17:09:14 +0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 12 of 44
8. Ct. Anand Singh (PW 4) took the stand to depose that
on 19.09.2015 he was posted as Ct. at PS Anand Parbat and on that
day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. He
further deposed that on that day IO received a call regarding
quarrel at Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, thereafter he along with IO
visited at the spot and came to know that injured were taken to the
Lady Harding Hospital. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, he
along with IO visited the hospital and came to know that injured
had been discharged after treatment. He further deposed that
during investigation IO prepared site plan Ex. PW3/D. The witness
has correctly identified both the accused persons in court.
8.1. Ct. Anand Singh (PW 4) was cross-examined
by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he has deposed
that he received call at about 01:00 PM and he left the police
station at about 01:30 PM. PW4 further deposed that he did not
make any departure entry in the roznamcha register when he left
the police station and he know that whenever a police official
leaves the police station, it is his duty to make a DD entry in the
roznamcha register. He voluntarily stated that the departure entry
was made by Duty Officer. He further deposed that every time,
when he left the police station, the entries were made by the Duty
Officer. PW4 denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot at
any point of time. He admitted the fact that the place of incident is
a thickly populated area and he had not asked any person to join the
investigation. PW4 further deposed that he does not know whether
IO had served any notice to any person at the spot or not. He
further deposed that he does not know the date and day of incident.
PW4 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13 17:09:21
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 13 of 44
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
9. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to
personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against them, the statements of accused persons were
recorded without oath on 06.01.2023 under section 313 Cr. PC.
They stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present
case and have stated that the alleged incident happened on account
of some street dog urinating in water canister/bottle of
complainant. They further stated that they are innocent and that
they want to lead defence evidence and the matter was fixed for
defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. During the trial, accused persons led the following
oral evidence, in their defence: –
ORAL EVIDENCE
DW1 :- Mukesh Kumar (Colleague of accused
Vinay @ Champion to prove plea of alibi of
accused Vinay @ Champion)
DW2 :- Kanchan (Eye Witness)
DW3 :- Brij Kishore (Brought attendance register
to prove plea of alibi of accused Vinay @
Champion)DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. DW 3/A :- Computerised copy of attendance sheet
dated 01.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 from the
office of Quess Corp Limited
Ex. DW 3/B :- Certificate U/s 63(4)(c) of The Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHALCr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 14 of 44
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13 17:09:31
+0530
11. During the course of trial DW-1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar
was examined on 31.01.2023, who is colleague of accused. In his
examination in chief, he has stated on oath that he is known to
accused Vinay @ Champion since the year 2012-13 and he also
knows his mother from the same time. DW1 has further deposed
that the incident in the FIR is mentioned of the month of
September, 2015. DW1 further deposed that he and his friend
Vinay @ Champion both were the meter reader in the BSES and
they are working on same position till today. He has further
deposed that the accused Vinay @ Champion is employee in the
BSES and today also he works as a meter reader. DW1 has further
deposed that the date of the incident is 18.09.2015 and the accused
Vinay @ Champion worked with him in the BSES office. DW1
has further deposed that on 19.09.2015 and 20.09.2015 they
worked together in the BSES and there is an attendance register in
their office. DW3 has further deposed that in the year 2015 there
was also attendance registered in the office of BSES and the
accused Vinay @ Champion on the said date was with him.
11.1. DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the
state wherein he has deposed that on the date of incident, he
received a call from the mother of accused Vinay that scuffle has
occurred near her house. DW1 admitted the fact that he did not
witness any incident and he had only received the information
regarding the same telephonically. He further admitted the fact that
he has not brought any attendance register to show the presence of
accused Vinay with him on 18.09.2015. DW1 further admitted the
fact that attendance register is managed and retained by the office
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:09:37 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 15 of 44
and at that time the register was maintained by one Mr. Ramdayal.
DW1 further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
12. DW2 Kanchan in her examination in chief has
deposed that she knows Nirmala Pandey from last so many years
and in the year 2015 in month of September arguments between
Nirmala Pandey and Archita took place as one street dog had
urinated on one plastic bucket which was lying in the street lane
outside the house of Nirmala Pandey. DW2 further deposed that at
that time accused Vinay was not present and Nirmala Pandey
requested Archita not to fight on the trivial issue but Archita did
not stop.
12.1. In her cross-examination DW2 has deposed
that she was the tenant in the house of Nirmala Pandey on the day
of incident and at the time of arguments, she was inside the house.
She further deposed that after hearing the noise she also went
outside and heard the point of contention of the argument when she
was standing outside. DW2 further deposed that she also made
efforts to pacify them, however, Archita did not say anything to
her. She further deposed that Nirmala Pandey made a call to Vinay
and informed the matter, however, he did not visit the spot. DW2
further deposed that accused Vinay is a meter reader in BSES.
DW2 denied the suggestion that she did not witness the incident
and the same was only narrated to her by Nirmala Pandey. DW2
further denied the suggestion that Vinay never visited the spot.
DW2 further denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely as
she was the tenant of accused Nirmala Pandey.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:09:43 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 16 of 44
13. DW3 Brij Kishore Singh was examined in chief on
15.01.2026, wherein he has deposed that he knows the accused
Vinay @ Champion and he was an employee in BSES Rajdhani
Power Ltd., First Floor, D-Block, BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
Delhi-110019. DW3 further deposed that now, it came under name
and address of contractor Quess Corp Limited, 13-1/11, First
Floor, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
He further deposed that accused Vinay @ Champion was working
a meter reader in the BSES Office and he has brought
computerized copy of one attendance sheet Ex. DW3/A dated
01.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 from the Office of Quess Corp Limited
in respect of accused Vinay @Champion along with copy of
certificate U/s 63(4)(C) of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Ex. DW3/B. DW3 further deposed that BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
was a client of Quess Corp Limited. He also admitted the fact that
on 17.09.2015, 18.09.2015 and 19.09.2015, accused was present
in the Office. DW3 further deposed that the timings were from
9.30 AM to 5.30 PM.
13.1. In his cross-examination DW3 has deposed
that he does not have any CCTV footage to show that the accused
Vinay was present at the office on 19.09.2015 at about 1:00P.M.
He further deposed that he does not know whether CCTV were
installed in the office at the time of incident or not as he got
employed with the company in July 2018. DW3 admitted the fact
that he does not have any personal knowledge about the fact
whether accused was present in the office or not. He denied the
suggestion that the attendance chart produced by him is a false and
fabricated documents created at the instance of the accused. He
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13 17:09:51
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 17 of 44
further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the
instance of the accused and the accused was present at the spot at
the date and time of the incident.
14. On 15.01.2026 Defence evidence was closed on the
request of Ld. Counsel for accused persons and the matter was
fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
15. 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.
16. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the
ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has
argued that PW1/complainant and PW2/husband of complainant
have been consistent about the facts of incident. She has further
argued that the genuineness of MLC of victim has been admitted
by the accused persons and upon perusal of MLC, injuries are
reflected on MLC. It is further argued that the fact of injury caused
to victim stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts. She has
further argued that the attendance register, which is produced by
DW3 has not been proved as per law as the requisite certificate has
not been produced by the said witness. 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.
17. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused persons has
argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. It is argued that the complainant has stated that
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 18 of 44
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:09:58 +0530
she was residing on rent, but no rent agreement has been provided
by the complainant to IO or in the court. It is further argued that no
call was made by complainant on 18.09.2015. It is further argued
that accused Vinay @ Champion was on duty at the date and time
of incident and the same has been proved by the defence witnesses
examined by the accused. It is further argued that no danda was
recovered. It is further argued that PW1/complainant in her cross
examination was not able to tell the name of her landlord and she
was not able to mention the date of incident. It is further argued
that PW1/complainant has admitted the fact that timings to fetch
water in her area are from 06:00 to 07:00 in the morning and 06:00
to 07:00 in the evening, therefore there is no question that she went
to fetch water at the time of incident, as at that time water did not
come in her area. It is further argued that the complainant has not
called at 100 no. when the quarrel took place and no public person
has been made a witness. It is further submitted that there are
contradictions in testimonies of PW1/complainant and
PW2/husband of complainant regarding the office timings of
husband of complainant and PW2 has stated that he did not go to
office on date of incident, whereas PW1 has deposed that her
husband went to office on date of incident. It is further argued that
the complainant does not remember the name of neighbour who
has called at 100 no. It is further argued that PW3/IO has deposed
that he reached at the spot at 2:00 PM and the area is thickly
populated but no notice was given to any public person. It is
further argued that accused Nirmala has no role in present case and
she has been falsely implicated in present case. Ld. Counsel has
submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of the eye-
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:10:05 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 19 of 44
witnesses. It is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the
burden casted upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be
acquitted for the said offences.
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
18. The accused persons have been charged for the
offences of voluntarily causing hurt (S. 323 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 persons
voluntarily caused simple hurt, as per Section 319 IPC, to the
victim. Similarly, offence under Section 341 IPC is proved by
establishing that the accused persons 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.
19. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 319,
323, 340, 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.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt –Whoever, except
in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both
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.
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. ANKUR
PANGHAL
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.13
17:10:11 +0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 20 of 44
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.”
20. In order to prove the offences punishable under
section 323 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz.,
i. Hurt: The accused should have caused bodily
pain, disease or infirmity to any person;
ii. Voluntary act: The hurt should have been caused
voluntarily by the accused i.e., with the intention
or knowledge that the accused by his/her act will
cause hurt to any person; and
iii. Hurt not caused on provocation: The hurt must not
be caused by the accused on grave and sudden
provocation, so as to fall within the ambit of
section 334 IPC.
21. 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;
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.13
17:10:18 +0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 21 of 44
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.
22. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general
rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and
wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint
liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability
is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating
from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in
furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts,
similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance
of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as
if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the
joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a
rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two
elements are necessary to 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.
23. 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. Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.13
17:10:24 +0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 22 of 44
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
24. 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 19.09.2015 at about 01:00
PM at House No. B-36, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi the accused persons, in furtherance of their
common intention, voluntarily caused simple hurt to the
complainant namely Archita Devi and her husband
Rupesh and thereby committed an offence punishable
U/s 323/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
II. Whether on 19.09.2015 at about 01:00
PM at House No. B-36, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi the accused persons, in furtherance of their
common intention, wrongfully retrained the
complainant namely Archita Devi and her husband
Rupesh and thereby committed an offence punishable
U/s 341/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
25. Events leading to incident – The case of the
prosecution is that the event which led to the incident on
19.09.2015 is that on 18.09.2015, complainant was returning home
after filling a water gallon from the boring (hand pump) and when
she reached in front of the house of accused Nirmala Pandey, a
stray dog urinated on her water gallon. It is further alleged that the
complainant asked Nirmala Pandey for some water to clean the
gallon, but accused Nirmala Pandey started quarrelling with her
and at that time, she quietly returned to her house.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.13
17:10:31 +0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 23 of 44
26. Evidence of injured witness – The prosecution in
order to prove its case has examined the complainant namely
Archita Devi as PW-1 and her husband Rupesh as PW-2, who are
the star witnesses of the prosecution. This it becomes important
here to discuss the lens with which the testimony of injured
witness is to be evaluated. Reliance in this regard is placed on
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr.
vs. The State of Maharashtra (2023) SCC Online SC 355 where it
was observed as follows:
“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be
appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the
Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of
the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material
contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be
believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits
to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value
and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be
discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account
of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in
the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction,
exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the
evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be
taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep
due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two
principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the
case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of
occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for
them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly,
whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in
their evidence. In respect of both these considerations,
circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or
established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their
presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:10:37 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 24 of 44
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.”
26.1. 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 facts,
natural variations in their versions are bound to appear. As such, it
is in this light that the evidence of injured witnesses is to be
examined.
26.2. 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
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13 17:10:45
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 25 of 44
defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as
extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial.
27. Contradictions and Inconsistencies – It has been
argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons that there are
material contradictions in the testimony of complainant as well as
husband of complainant. Thus, it becomes pertinent to discuss the
law regarding appreciation of evidence of a witness in case there
are contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of the said
witness. The Hon’ble Apex Court has pointed out in a catena of
judgments that minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the
matter, are of no consequence. In Brahm Swaroop vs. State of UP
(2011) 6 SCC 288, it was observed, inter alia, as under –
“32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the
evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters,
which do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case, may not
prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. “Irrelevant
details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a
witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.”
Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect
the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself
prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and
discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting
through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration
and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether
the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus,
an undue importance should not be attached to omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of
the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.
As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to
be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound
to occur in the statements of witnesses. (See: State of UP vs. MK
Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash
(2007) 12 SCC 381, State vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 and
Prithu vs. State of HP (2009) 11 SCC 588)”
27.1. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the reliability of testimony of an injured witness
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.13
17:10:52 +0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 26 of 44
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])”
27.2. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Birbal Nath v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors [2023] 14 S.C.R. 85:
2023 INSC 957, has observed as under –
“… In Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, this Court had
held as under:
“24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true
witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant
details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can
successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But
courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the
court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious
a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of
two witnesses or as between two statements of the same
witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.”
27.3. The three judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India on 09th January, 2025 in a case titled as Goverdhan
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:10:58 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 27 of 44
& 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]…”
27.4. 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:
“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 ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
Date:to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to
PANGHAL 2026.04.13
17:11:05
+0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 28 of 44
implicit a third person falsely for the commission of the
offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should
be relied upon unless there were grounds for the
rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein.”
15. The discrepancies/contradictions/improvements which are
not material cannot discredit the testimony of an injured witness
as was observed in the case titled as Vinod Tyagi & Ors. Vs. State
2013 IV AD (Delhi) 145.
16. Human memory has its own peculiar limitations of retaining,
recapitulating, narrating and reiterating etc. It varies from person
to person, event to event and from time to time etc. A person may
very meticulously and vividly remember certain events,
occurrences, persons or acts depending upon his own capacity,
the importance attached to the persons, events, time, places, etc.
Those very aspects may be too trivial for another person and
therefore, little or no memory would be there. It is common that
narration of events, etc. varies not only from person to person but
the same person may not be able to recall and reiterate a particular
thing/event, person/incident with the same precision and
chronological order as was the first or the previous narrative was.
This does not mean that the person was not privy to the event
narrated, as long as the essential aspect remains intact and alive.
A slip here or there or mix up about certain aspects would not rob
the strength of the narration as long as the inference and impact of
the narrative remains unadulterated and unaltered.
17. The discrepancies/inconsistencies etc. are required to
evaluated in the real world in real life situations, where minor and
trivial ones are to be ignored. A mix up in the face and name,
some minor mix up in chronological narrative, time gap, exact
timings which document prepared, where and signed by whom
first, so on and so forth are not potent enough to uproot the
testimony of a witness, if the soul of the narrative remains intact.
In this context reference can be made to the judgment State of
Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr reported in 1981 SCC (2) 752, it
was held as under:
“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.”
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:11:11 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 29 of 44
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.”
28. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the facts of
the present case may be considered. The arguments of Ld. Counsel
for accused persons are that the complainant has herself admitted
the fact that water in her area comes from 06 am to 07 am in
morning and 06 pm to 07 pm in evening. 1 It is further argued that
there are material contradictions regarding the fact as to what were
office timings of husband of complainant and whether on the date
of incident, he went to his office or not.
1
PW1/complainant accepted the fact that the timings to fetch water in their area is 6:00 to
7:00 in the morning and 6:00 to 7:00 in the evening. ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHALDate: 2026.04.13 17:11:17
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 30 of 44
29. The complainant has mentioned all the details in her
examination in chief including the exact time and date of incident.
However, in her cross-examination she has failed to tell the house
number or name of the landlord in which she used to reside at the
time of incident, as a tenant.2 She has further deposed that the
office timings of her husband were around 09:00 am to 05:00 pm
and on the date of incident her husband came back at around 01:00
PM.3 However, PW2/husband of complainant has stated totally
different version and he deposed that he has his own business and
there is no fix timings of his office and on the date of incident he
did not go to his office but thereafter he stated that he does not
remember whether he went to office or not, as the incident
happened around 07 years back.4
29.1. The whole case of prosecution is based upon
the fact that on 19.09.2015, at about 1:00 PM, after having his
meal, husband of complainant namely Rupesh was going back to
Karol Bagh for his work and when he reached in front of the house
of accused Nirmala Pandey, she stopped his way and started
beating him. However, there are material contradictions in the
testimonies of PW1/complainant and PW2/husband of
complainant regarding office timings as well as the fact as to
2
In cross-examination, Ms. Archita Devi (PW 1) deposed that she does not remember the
house number in which she used to reside at the time of incident and they were tenant in that
house. PW1 further deposed that she does not remember the name of the landlord as she is
illiterate and she does not know whether any rent agreement was executed between them and
the landlord but her husband must be aware about that.
3
PW1 admitted the fact that her husband used to go office at around 9:00 A.M. and comes in
the evening at 5:00 P.M. PW1 further admitted the fact that on the day of incident her husband
went to office at around 9:00 A.M. She voluntarily deposed that on the day of incident her
husband came back at around 1:00 PM.
4
PW 2 deposed that he has his own business and there is no fix timings for his office. He
further deposed that on the next day i.e., 19.09.2015, he did not go to my office. He
voluntarily deposed that the incident happened around 07 years back, so he does not Digitally signed by
ANKUR
remember whether he went to office on that day or not. PANGHAL
ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.13
17:11:24 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 31 of 44
whether PW2 went to office on date of incident or not, which is a
major contradiction and discrepancy, which goes into the root of
the matter, so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. Further
the version deposed by PW2 before court stating that he did not go
to the office on date of incident or her may have gone to the office
on the said date is different in material particulars from that
disclosed in his statement U/s 161 CrPC and the case of
prosecution becomes doubtful.
29.2. Furthermore, the complainant as well as her
husband have deposed that they have not made call at 100 number,
when the quarrel took place and one of their neighbours had called
at 100 number, however they failed to disclose name of such
neighbour. PW2 also deposed that he did not call any person for
his help. PW1/complainant has deposed that public persons were
going from place of incident but she did not call anyone for help.
However no public person has been made witness by the IO,
except the complainant and her husband, whose testimonies have
discrepancies, which goes to the root of case of prosecution.
29.3. PW3 is the IO of present case and he has also
deposed that when reached at the spot they found gathering of
public persons and the place of incident is a thickly populated area.
PW3 has further deposed that no notice was given to any public
person to join investigation and he does not know the name of
person from whom he has inquired from the neighbourhood. Thus,
the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was
made by PW3 to join public witnesses in the proceedings. It is a
well settled proposition that non joining of public witness shrouds
doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section
ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL 17:11:31
Date: 2026.04.13
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 32 of 44
100(4) of the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official
conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society.
Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on
the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6
of the judgment in Pawan Kumar vs. The Delhi Administration,
1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had
observed as under:
” … According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness
in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was
present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus
stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a
crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of
commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations.
Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the
Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good
foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to
contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the
investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any
public witness even though number of them were present. No
plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is
forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of
serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an
apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves
with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the
I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent
witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made
and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest
or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused.”
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi vs. State, 1992
(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
observed as under:
“18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it
should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made
to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident
that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we
find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have
been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery
being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers
had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later
on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they Digitally signed by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.13 17:11:39 +0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 33 of 44
could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to
perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a
citizen, which is an offence under the IPC“.
30. This Court is, however, conscious that the
prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole
ground of non-joining of public witnesses, as public witnesses
keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has
been held in Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988
SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of
public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there
are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinabove and
hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
31. Medical Evidence – The version of the injured
persons is however supported by medical evidence on record. The
accused persons have admitted the MLC No. 53621 dt. 19.09.2015
Ex. AD-4 of the complainant under section 294 CrPC. From
perusal of MLC, it is revealed that the doctor has opined the nature
of injury as simple. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled
as Ashok Daga v. Directorate of Enforcement in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 8535/2024 (Diary No. 22849/2024) vide order
dated 12th July, 2024 has held that calling upon the accused to
admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the
prosecution along with the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could
not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused,
nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against
himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.13
17:12:04
+0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 34 of 44
31.1. In the case titled as Shyam Narayan Ram v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726: 2024
INSC 800 while interpreting section 294 CrPC has held as under –
“15. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision, in particular, sub-
section (3) provides that where the genuineness of any document
is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any
inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of
the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That
is to say that if the authors of such documents does not enter the
witness box to prove their signatures, the said documents could
still be read in evidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has
the jurisdiction in its discretion to require such signature to be
proved. In the present case, the documents filed by the
investigating agency were all public documents duly signed by
public servants in their respective capacities either as
Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the autopsy or
other police officials preparing the memo of recoveries etc. As
such the Trial Court had rightly relied upon the same and
exhibited them in view of the specific repeated stand taken by the
defence in admitting the genuineness of the said documents. In so
far as the police papers which had been signed by private persons
like the informant, the same had been duly proved.
16. Thus the only job left for the Court was to appreciate, analyse
and test the credit-worthiness of the evidence led by the
prosecution which was available on record and if such evidence
beyond reasonable doubt established the charges, the conviction
could be recorded. However, if the evidence was not credit-
worthy and worthy of reliance, the accused could be given benefit
of doubt or clean acquittal.
17. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, found that
the evidence of PW 1 and 2, eye-witnesses to the account, to have
fully supported the prosecution story and during the cross-
examination, the defence could not elicit anything which could
discredit their testimony.
18. Coming back to the applicability of section 294 CrPC,
reference may be had to the following judgments of this Court in
the case of Sonu alias Amar vs. State of Haryana5 wherein this
Court had held in para 30 as follows:
“30. Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 provides a procedure
for filing documents in a Court by the prosecution or the
accused. The documents have to be included in a list and the
other side shall be given an opportunity to admit or deny the
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
5
[2017] 8 SCR 151: (2017) 8 SCC 570. 17:12:13 +0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 35 of 44
genuineness of each document. In case the genuineness is
not disputed, such document shall be read in evidence
without formal proof in accordance with the Evidence Act.”
19. Further, in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of
Haryana,6 this Court held in para 14 as under:
“14….. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission
or denial on a document under sub-section (1) to Section
294 CrPC personally from the accused or complainant or
the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made
by the counsel for defence, on the document filed by the
prosecution or on the application/ report with which same is
filed, is sufficient compliance of Section 294 CrPC.
Similarly on a document filed by the defence, endorsement
of admission or denial by the public prosecutor is sufficient
and defence will have to prove the document if not admitted
by the prosecution. In case it is admitted, it need not be
formally proved, and can be read in evidence. In a
complaint case such an endorsement can be made by the
counsel for the complainant in respect of document filed by
the defence.”
20. Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs. State of Uttaranchal7
has held in para 21 as under:
“21. It has been argued that non-examination of the
concerned medical officers is fatal for the prosecution.
However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence
admitted the genuineness of the injury reports and the post-
mortem examination reports before the trial court. So the
genuineness and authenticity of the documents stands
proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under Section
294 of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that if the
genuineness of any document filed by a party is not
disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive
evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.
Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is
not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem
report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the
correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned
being examined.”
31.2. In light of the law down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in above mentioned judgments, it can be said that
genuineness of MLC of complainant was not disputed and
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR
6
[2015] 12 SCR 234: (2016) 15 SCC 485.
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:12:19 +0530
7
[2009] 5 SCC 771: (2009) 13 SCC 722.
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 36 of 44
therefore, the MLC may be read in evidence in the trial without
proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be
signed. That is to say that if the authors of said MLC do not enter
the witness box to prove their signatures, the said MLC could still
be read in evidence. Perusal of MLC reveals that swelling over
scalp and abrasion over the temporal region of scalp has been
mentioned on it. Further, the nature of injury mentioned is simple
and the nature of weapon used is mentioned as blunt. The
complainant has alleged that the injury was caused to her by kicks
and blows.
32. Official witnesses – The police officials examined by
the prosecution include the first responders and the officials who
investigated the case. These witnesses have deposed about the
events that unfolded pursuant to the incident. PW4/Ct. Anand is
the police official who accompanied the IO/PW3 HC Balram to the
spot and thereafter to the hospital. The role of the witness is that he
accompanied the IO to the spot as well as hospital and has deposed
about the preparation of site plan by the IO.
32.1. PW3/HC Balram is the IO in present case and
he has deposed about collecting MLC of complainant, recording of
statement of complainant, preparation of rukka Ex. PW3/A,
manner of registration of FIR, arresting of accused Vinay @
Champion vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/B, serving notice U/s 41A
Ex. PW3/C to accused Nirmal Pandey for joining investigation,
preparation of site plan Ex. PW3/D, recording of disclosure
statement of accused Vinay and Nirmala Pandey Ex. PW3/E & Ex.
PW3/F respectively and recording statement of witnesses.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:12:26 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 37 of 44
32.2. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for
accused that PW3 has reached the spot at around 02:00 PM and has
also not made any efforts to join any public person in investigation,
despite the place of incident being a public place and thickly
populated area. Furthermore, the police witnesses are only relevant
to prove the investigation conducted after the incident. The version
of these witnesses generally corroborates the claims of the public
witness.
33. Defence of accused – The accused persons in their
statements recorded U/s 313 CrPC have stated that they have been
falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged incident
happened on account of some street dog urinating in water
cannister/bottle of the complainant. They further stated they are
innocent. Furthermore, the accused Vinay @ Champion has taken
defence of plea of alibi. It becomes pertinent here to discuss that
plea of alibi is a relevant fact under section 11 of The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred as “Evidence Act“/
“IEA”)8. Furthermore, as per section 106 of the Evidence Act9, the
burden of proof is upon the accused to prove the said relevant act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Harjinder Singh v. The
State of Punjab & Anr10 has held that an alibi, however, is a plea in
the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on
the accused.
8
When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant –Facts not otherwise relevant are
relevant– (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by
themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any
fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
9
Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge — When any fact is especially within
the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
10
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 168: 2025 INSC 634 PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.13
17:12:36 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 38 of 44
34. To discharge the said burden of proof the accused
has produced two witnesses namely DW1/Mukesh Kumar and
DW3/Brij Kishore Singh. DW1 is a public witness and he is
colleague of accused Vinay @ Champion. He has deposed that on
19.05.2015 and 20.09.2015 he worked with the accused Vinay in
BSES and the accused Vinay @ Champion was with him on the
said date. DW1 has also deposed that in the year 2015, there was an
attendance register in office of BSES. Furthermore, DW3 has
produced the computerized copy of attendance sheet Ex. DW3/A
and certificate U/s 63(4)(c) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 (hereinafter referred as “BSA”) Ex. DW 3/B and he has
deposed that the accused Vinay @ Champion was working as
meter reader in BSES office and he was present in the office on
17.09.2015, 18.09.2015 and 19.09.2015. DW3 has further deposed
that the office timings were from 09:30 am to 05:30 pm. DW3 was
cross-examined by the Ld. APP for state and he has deposed that
he does not have any CCTV footage to show that accused Vinay
was present at the office on 19.09.2025 at about 01:00 PM and he
has no personal knowledge about the said fact. DW3 is a witness
who has brought the record showing presence of accused Vinay @
Champion in office on the date of incident. Furthermore
DW2/Kanchan has also deposed that accused Vinay was not
present when arguments took place between accused Nirmala
Pandey and complainant Archita regarding urinating by a dog on
plastic bucket.
35. Ld. APP for state has argued that the attendance
register, which is produced by DW3 has not been proved as per
law as the requisite certificate has not been produced by the said
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13 17:12:44
+0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 39 of 44
witness. Thus, it becomes pertinent here to discuss the law
regarding admissibility of electronic evidence. In the landmark
case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, 2003 (4) SCC
601, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that electronic
evidence, including computer-generated records, could be
considered as “documentary evidence” under Section 3 of the IEA.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Vs.
Kailash Kishanrao (2020) 7 SCC 1 has clarified two issues: (1) A
certificate is necessary when presenting electronic evidence as
secondary evidence, not when the original record is available. (2)
Compliance with Section 65B (4) is mandatory, even if obtaining a
certificate is not possible. In distinguishing between primary and
secondary evidence, the court highlighted that the original
information contained within a computer is considered as primary
evidence. Copies derived from it, on the other hand, are inherently
secondary evidence. The court also clarified that the phrase “any
of the conditions” in Section 65B (4) should be interpreted as “all.”
Therefore, since an electronic record, as mentioned in subsection
(1), is considered secondary evidence, the requirement of a
certificate in accordance is mandatory. The court clarified that an
application can always be made to a judge for the production of
such a certificate from the relevant person under Section 65B (4),
even if the person refuses to provide it at the first instance.
36. In the present case secondary electronic evidence
has been exhibited by DW3 as he has produced computerized copy
of attendance sheet dated 01.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 from the office
of Quess Corp Limited and he has also deposed that BSES
Rajdhani Power Limited has now come under name and address of Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:12:51 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 40 of 44
contractor Quess Corp Limited. Further section 90A IEA11
provides for presumption as to electronic records which are proved
to be five years old. DW3 has produced the requisite certificate Ex.
DW3/B, however the same has been titled as “Certificate under
63(4)(C), The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023”. Perusal of
section 170 BSA reveals that in cases, which were pending,
immediately before the date on which the said Adhiniyam came
into force, IEA shall be applicable on such proceedings. Therefore,
it has to evaluated if the condition mentioned in section 65B of
IEA have been fulfilled in present case or not. Perusal of Ex. DW
3/B reveals that it complies with all the conditions mentioned in
Section 65B of IEA. Thus, the secondary evidence Ex. DW 3/A is
admissible and it shows that accused Vinay @ Champion was
present at office on the date of incident.
37. In the present matter, as noted above, the accused
persons have been successful to establish their plea of false
implication and the same was not rebutted by the prosecution. The
evidence of the accused persons inspires confidence. Therefore, it
shakes the complete case of prosecution because accused Vinay @
Champion has been able to prove his plea of alibi and the case of
prosecution is that he was present at spot, on date of incident along
with co-accused Nirmala Pandey.
11
Presumption as to electronic records five years old. — Where any electronic record,
purporting or proved to be five years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the
particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the electronic signature which
purports to be the electronic signature of any particular person was so affixed by him or any
person authorised by him in this behalf.
Explanation. — Electronic records are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in
which, and under the care of the person with whom, they naturally be; but no custody is
improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or the circumstances of the particular
Digitally signed by
case are such as to render such an origin probable. ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.13
17:13:10 +0530
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 41 of 44
38. As such, on the basis of the above discussion, the
inevitable conclusion is that the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses does not inspires confidence. The accused persons have
been able to establish their defence and the same is of such nature
so as to render the whole case of the prosecution doubtful.
39. 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 ANKUR
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
PANGHAL
or the other that all of them participated and engaged
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.13
17:13:32
+0530Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 42 of 44
themselves in furtherance of the common intention which
might be of a preconcerted or prearranged plan or one
manifested or developed on the spur of the moment in the
course of the commission of the offence. The common
intention or the intention of the individual concerned in
furtherance of the common intention could be proved either
from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or
attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the
parties. The ultimate decision, at any rate, would invariably
depend upon the inferences deducible from the
circumstances of each case.” (emphasis supplied)
40. In view of the above observations, the evidence on
record is to be evaluated. As observed, the deposition of the
complainant and her husband is that on the date of incident, the
accused persons namely Nirmala Pandey and Vinay @ Champion
were present at the spot of incident. However, the accused Vinay
@ Champion has been able to prove his plea of alibi. The material
on record is not sufficient to conclude that the accused persons
acted in concert to attack the injured person/complainant as well as
her husband. On the basis of the above, it can be held that the
prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt qua the offences with which the accused persons have been
charged with.
CONCLUSION
41. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable
conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove all the
ingredients of the offences beyond any iota of doubt. This Court
hold that the required threshold has not been met by the
prosecution and it has not been able to successfully prove that the
accused persons have committed the offences under Section
323/341/34 IPC. The accused persons have been successful in
punching holes on material aspects in the case set up by the
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 43 of 44
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:13:39 +0530
prosecution. The inconsistencies brought out by the accused
persons in the case of the prosecution are major and goes to the
root of the matter. The defence of the accused persons of false
implication has been proved.
42. Resultantly, the accused persons namely 1. VINAY
@ CHAMPION S/o Hanuman Sharan Pandey and 2. NIRMALA
PANDEY W/o Hanuman Sharan Pandey are hereby found not
guilty and are accordingly ACQUITTED of the offences
punishable under sections 323/341/34 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 13.04.2026 in the presence of the
accused persons.
The judgment contains 44 pages and each page have been
signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.13
17:13:45 +0530
(ANKUR PANGHAL)
JMFC-05, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
13/04/2026
Cr. Case No. 9279/18 State vs. Vinay @ Champion and Anr. Page 44 of 44
