[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Tasleem & Ors vs The State (Gov T. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 26 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 23.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on:26.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 143/2017
TASLEEM & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr. Advocate
alongwith Mr. R.K. Kochar and Mr.
Abhishek Varma, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the accused persons in Sessions
Case No. 103/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, assails the
judgment dated 17.01.2017 and order on sentence dated
21.01.2017 as per which the accused persons have beenconvicted
and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 308 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.04.2012 at
around 11:30 PM, the accused persons in furtherance of their
common intention, wrongfully restrained PW2 and voluntarily
caused bodily injury on his head and stomach with an iron rod and
a brick with the intention and knowledge that, if they by that act
caused death, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. Hence, the accused persons are alleged to
have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 308
read with Section 34 IPC.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW8/A FIS of PW3, given on
05.04.2012, Crime no. 127/2012, Jagat Puri Police Station, that is,
Ext. A-1 FIR was registered by the Assistant Sub-Inspector. PW8,
Sub-Inspector, conducted investigation into the crime and on
completion of the same filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging
commission of the aforesaid offences.
4. When the accused persons were produced before the trial
court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to
them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. Thereafter, in
compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the
Court of Session concerned. On appearance of the accused persons
and after hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated
21.01.2015, framed a Charge under Sections 341, 308 read with
Section 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused
persons, to which they pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined
and Exts. PW1/P-1, PW1/A, PW2/A-B, PW3/A, PW5/A, PW6/A,
PW7/A-C, PW8/C-F A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9 and
A-10 were marked.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all
those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They claimed
that they had been falsely implicated in the case.
7. After questioning the accused persons under Section.
313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was
mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under
Section 232 Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-
compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the
proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is shown to
have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused
(See Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009
SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused persons have no case
that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any
prejudice to them.
8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the
accused persons.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 17.01.2017, found the accused persons
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 308 read with
Section 34 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 21.01.2017, all
accused persons have been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 years and to fine of ₹25,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of 06
months.
10. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants that there are material contradictions in the testimony of
all the witnesses. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6 have turned hostile
and does not support the version of prosecution, nor did they
attribute any specific role to any of the appellants. In such
circumstances, the trial court grossly erred in convicting the
appellants/accused persons.
11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
while supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that there is
no infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for an interference
from this Court.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in the present
appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed
against the appellants/accused persons by the trial court are
sustainable or not.
14. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary
evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext.
PW 8/A FIS of PW2, the injured, reads thus:- On 02.04.2012, he
asked Janu (A3) not to park the latter's motorcycle in front of his
fruit cart. A3 started abusing him and left the spot after threatening
that he would "see him" later. On 04.04.2012, at about 11:30 PM,
after closing his fruit cart, he went to Chaupal Khureji to get food.
When he reached near the Masjid at Chaupal Khureji, Janu (A3),
along with his brothers Kale (A2) and Tasleem (A1), arrived there
carrying iron rods and sticks. Janu stopped him and told him that
he had been behaving arrogantly and they would teach him a
lesson and thereafter, started abusing him. At that time, Tasleem
(A1) caught hold of his hands, while Kale (A2) attacked him on
his head, stomach, and hand with an iron rod. Janu (A3) then
picked up a brick and struck him on his head. Due to the injuries
sustained on his head and the other parts of his body, he fell down.
Someone informed his brother, Talib (PW4), who reached the spot
and took him to the L.B.S. Hospital. All three brothers, Janu (A3),
Kale (A2), and Tasleem (A1), jointly caused him serious injuries
by attacking him with iron rods, sticks, and bricks.
15. PW2, when examined before the trial court, deposed that
he used to park his fruit cart near the temple, sabzi mandi, Khureji.
On the date of the incident at about 10:30-11 pm, he was standing
at his fruit cart, when A3 parked his Activa scooty of white colour
in front of his fruit cart. He asked A3 to park his scooty at some
distance from his fruit cart. At this, an altercation had taken place
between A3 and him and thereafter A3 left. He went to Khureji
Chowpal (cross road) on his Activa scooty to purchase ice-cream
for his son. When he was leaving on his Activa scooty from the
ice-cream shop, someone hit him on his head from behind and he
became unconscious. ("Aankhon ke saamne andhera chaa gya").
When he regained consciousness, he found himself being taken by
his brother Talib (PW4) to the hospital for treatment. The police
came to the hospital. However, they did not make any inquiries.
They only obtained his signature on a written paper, the contents
of which he is unaware. PW2 further deposed that he has not told
the name of the assailants to the police.
15.1. At this juncture, the Prosecutor sought permission of
the Court to "cross-examine" PW2, which was allowed. On being
further examined by the Prosecutor, he denied having given any
statement to the police.
15.2. PW2, in cross-examination, deposed that the three
accused persons present in the court had not caused any injury to
him on the date of the incident.
16. PW5 deposed that on 12.04.2012 at about 11:30 PM,
while he was having dinner in a hotel at Chaupal, Khureji Khas,
Delhi, a quarrel took place between Galib (PW2) and Janu (A3)
along with his two brothers, namely, Tasleem (A1) and Kale (A2).
He did not see who had beaten PW2. However, he noticed that
Galib (PW2) was bleeding from his head and that a quarrel was
going on between Galib (PW2) and the said persons. He did not
see anything in the hands of Janu (A3) or his brothers (A1 and
A2). At this stage, on the request of the Prosecutor, permission was
granted by the trial court to "cross-examine" PW5, as he had
resiled from certain portions of his earlier statement. On further
examination by the Prosecutor, PW5 deposed that it was possible
that the incident had taken place on 04.04.2012. He denied that
Kale (A2) was carrying an iron rod or Janu (A3) a brick or
Tasleem (A1) a danda, or that they had beaten Galib (PW2) with
the same.
17. PW3, the mother of PW2, admitted that she had not
witnessed the incident.
18. Apart from PW2, the injured and PW5, the alleged
occurrence witness, there is no other witness who is supposed to
have witnessed the incident. It is true that the medical evidence
shows that PW2 had sustained injuries on the said day. But there is
no evidence regarding the persons who had caused the injuries. In
such circumstances, the trial court went wrong in relying on the
materials on record to convict the accused persons, especially
when neither PW2 nor PW5 supported the prosecution case.
19. The conviction of the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC is therefore
unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
appellants/accused persons are acquitted under Section 235(1)
Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with
Section 34 IPC. They are set at liberty and their bail bonds shall
stand cancelled.
21. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
p'ma
