Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET PAHWA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 301/2025
CNR No. DL NE 01-003939-2025
1. MOHABBAT ALI
S/o Sh. Inaam Ali
2. RAZIYA BEGUM
W/o. Mohabbat Ali
Both R/o H. No. E-95,
Gali No.5, Near Chand Masjid,
Shastri Park, Delhi.
........ Appellants
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through SHO
PS; New Usmanpur, Delhi
....... Respondent
Date of Institution of Appeal : 24.12.2025
Date of Completion of Arguments : 08.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 23.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned
judgment dated 13.10.2025, passed by the Court of Ms.
Dhanashree Deka, Ld. ACJM, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and order on sentence dated
02.12.2025, passed by the Court of Sh. Tushar Gupta, Ld.
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 1 of 14 --
2
ACJM, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
case FIR No.300/2007, PS New Usmanpur, Delhi, wherein,
both the accused persons (appellants herein) were convicted
U/sec. 324/341/34 of IPC and sentenced to simple
imprisonment for a period of 30 months and compensation
of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Both the
appellants were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-
each to be paid to the State.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and
order on sentence, the appellants/convicts have filed the
present appeal. Notice of the appeal was accepted by the
Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent. Notice was also
issued to the complainant, who had appeared in person
alongwith her counsel.
3. The record of the Trial Court is also requisitioned.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on the statement of
complainant Smt. Samar Begum, an FIR No. 300/2007 was
got registered u/s. 324/341/34 IPC, wherein, it was alleged
that on 06.08.2007 at about 01:00 PM, in front of H. No.
E-393, Gali No. 12, Shastri Park, Delhi, accused persons
Mohabbat Ali and Razia Begum (appellants herein), in
furtherance of their common intention, caught hold of the
complainant Smt. Samar Begum and caused injury upon her
with a sharp edged weapon.
5. As per the case of the prosecution, both the accused
persons (appellants herein) have committed offences under
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 2 of 14 --
3
Section 324/341/34 IPC. After completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed under the same
sections.
6. During trial, charges under Sections 324/341/34 IPC
were framed against both the accused persons to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. To discharge it’s onus, the prosecution examined as
many as 07 witnesses. Statement of both the accused
persons u/s.313 CrCP were recorded separately, wherein
accused submitted that they are innocent and falsely
implicated in the said case. All the alleged documents
pertaining to the said case were prepared in the concerned
police station and false case was foisted upon them.
Accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
8. Vide impugned judgment dated 13.10.2025, the Ld.
Trial Court was pleased to convict both the accused persons
(appellant herein) u/s.324/341/34 IPC and thereafter, vide
impugned order on sentence dated 02.12.2025, they were
sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 30 months
and compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the
complainant. Both the appellants were also sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid to the State.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellants
herein, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent No.1, Ld.
Counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record of
the Ld. Trial Court.
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 3 of 14 --
4
10. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
impugned judgment dated 13.10.2025 and order on
sentence dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court are
against the facts of the case and law and same is illegal,
arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice,
which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and
submitted that the appellant no.1 herein is a senior citizen of
70 years old and appellant no. 2 herein is 55 years old ill
lady and both of them are suffering from old aged diseases.
Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has
grossly erred in appreciating the version of the respondent
in it’s entirety, as the Ld. Trial Court has not properly
appreciated the material on record, while passing the
impugned judgment, which is contrary to the material on
record.
11. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has further submitted
that the facts and circumstances of the present case directly
indicate that the respondent has been successful in
procuring the impugned judgment in her favour by
misleading the Ld. Trial Court and the appellants have been
made scapegoat. The Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated
the material fact that there are several contradictions in the
deposition of the victim.
12. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has further submitted
that the story of prosecution was false and fabricated and
based on the concocted story stated by the complainant,
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 4 of 14 --
5
whereas true facts are that there was a small scuffle
between the appellants and the complainant, in which the
complainant slapped the appellant no. 2 and when the
appellants threatened her that they would go to police
station for registration of a case, only then, the complainant
registered the present false case. Ld. Counsel has also
submitted that the complainant was a quarrelsome lady and
she had same types of disputes from other neighbors, and
she had already lodged some other complaints against them,
but the police kept silent in this respect and registered the
present false case.
13. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has further submitted
that in her complaint, the complainant had alleged that she
got inflicted the injuries from some sharp weapon used by
the appellants, however no such weapon was recovered
from the possession of appellants, however, the MLC also
reflected that the injuries are simple in nature and there was
no cut mark or any other mark present, which could
possibly be given by such sharp weapon. Ld. Counsel has
also submitted that the Ld. Trial Court without applying it’s
judicial mind had closed the opportunities to cross-examine
the main witnesses, so the steps taken by the Ld. Trial Court
were not justified and caused great violation of fundamental
rights of the appellants, as the Ld. Trial Court ignored the
legal rights of the appellants that if the accused have no
counsel, legal aid counsel may be provided to the accused,
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 5 of 14 --
6
despite this, the Ld. Trial Court closed the opportunities to
cross-examine the witnesses.
14. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has further submitted
that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment
of conviction and order on the point of sentence in haste
and totally in arbitrary manner, without applying its judicial
mind and prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction
and order on the point of sentence may be set aside, in the
interest of justice.
15. Sh. F. M. Ansari, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
/respondent no.1 and Sh. Mohd. Shadab Abbasi, Ld.
Counsel for respondent no. 2 have submitted that the Ld.
Trial Court has not committed any error, while convicting
and sentencing the appellant/convict as the Ld. Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment and order on sentence, after
considering all the material facts and circumstances of the
case and prayed for dismissing the present appeal filed by
the appellants/convicts.
16. I have given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants/convicts, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent
no.1, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the
record.
17. Perusal of the record of the Ld. Trial Court reveals
that on the statement of the complainant Smt. Samar
Begum, FIR No. 300/2007 was registered u/s. 324/341/34
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 6 of 14 --
7
IPC. After completing the investigation, the chargesheet
was filed against the accused persons (appellants herein).
Cognizance was taken and charges u/s. 324/341/34 IPC
were framed against both the accused persons. The
prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as
07 witnesses.
18. On the completion of evidence of the prosecution, the
statements of both the appellants/convicts U/sec. 313 of
Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein, all the incriminating
evidence were put to both the accused, which were denied
by the accused persons. As per the accused, they were
falsely implicated in the present case. As per accused, the
complainant was in a habit of fighting and falsely
implicating the other members of the locality. Accused did
not prefer to lead evidence in their defence.
19. I have gone through the impugned judgment and
order on sentence, the Trial Court record including the
evidence of the prosecution recorded during the trial and
also heard the arguments advanced by both the parties.
20. The present appeal has been filed against the
judgment on conviction dated 13.10.2025 and order on
sentence dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
As per the judgment on conviction dated 13.10.2025,
both the accused persons (appellants herein) were
convicted U/sec. 324/341/34 of IPC, As per the order on
sentence dated 02.12.2025, both the convicts (appellants
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 7 of 14 --
8
herein) were sentenced to simple imprisonment for a
period of 30 months and compensation of Rs.50,000/- to
be paid to the complainant. Both the convicts were also
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid to
the State.
21. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon
the testimonies of PW-1 Samar Begum and PW-2
Sabairam. Both the witnesses have very categorically
stated that both the convicts (appellants herein) stopped
them. Appellant Razia Begum caught hold of PW-1
Samar Begum and appellant Mohabbat Ali started
beating her and caused injury on her left hand wrist and
near her neck by some sharp/point object.
22. The injuries have been duly proved vide MLC No.
C-4422, which is Ex.PW4/A, by examining Dr.
Parmeshwar Ram as PW-6. Thus, the act of the
appellants in stopping the complainant and causing
injuries upon her were duly proved by the prosecution.
However, it is to be seen whether the appellants were
liable to be convicted u/s. 324 IPC or not?
23. Sec. 386 of CrPC provides for Powers of the
Appellate Court. It provides that after perusing such
record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he
appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, and in
case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the
accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 8 of 14 --
9
considers that there is no sufficient ground for
interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) in an appeal from a conviction-
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried
by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to
such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the
nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the
sentence, but not so as to enhance the same;
24. In case, Padam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 2000 SC 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that:
“It is duty of an Appellate Court to look into the
evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an
independent conclusion as to whether the said
evidence can be relied upon or not and even it can be
relied upon then whether the prosecution can be said to
have proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said
evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be
adjudged by Appellate Court in drawing inference
from proved and admitted facts.”
25. In case, Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
(1997) 3 Crimes 102 (Raj), it was held that:
“The law clearly expects the Appellate Court to
dispose of the appeal on merits not merely by perusing
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 9 of 14 --
10
the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment, but by
cross-checking the reasoning with the evidence on
record with a view to satisfying itself that the
reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court are
consistent with the material on record.”
26. The appellants have been convicted u/s.
324/341/34 IPC. Sec. 324 IPC provides for voluntarily
causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means. As per Sec.
324 IPC, hurt must have been caused by means of some
dangerous weapons, meaning thereby, the nature of
weapon used is the essence of the offence. Thus, to
attract Sec. 324 IPC, it was incumbent upon the
prosecution to prove that the injury has been caused by
the use of any of the weapons or means mentioned u/s.
324 IPC. The essential ingredients to attract Sec. 324
IPC is as follow:-
(1) Accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to the victim;
(2) Accused must commit an act with the knowledge
that thereby he was likely to cause hurt or grievous
hurt to the victim;
(3) It was caused-
(a) by any shooting instrument; or
(b) by any stabbing instrument; or
(c) by any cutting instrument; or
(d) by any instrument, if used as a weapon of
offence, likely to cause death; or
(e) by means of any poison; or
(f) by means of any corrosive substance; or
(g) by means of any explosive substance; or
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 10 of 14 --
11
(h) by means of any animal.
27. Thus, in order to sustain a conviction under section
324 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused
voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt was caused by
means of an instrument referred to in the section.
Nothing short of that will suffice.
28. In the present case, although it was duly proved
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that hurt
was caused by the accused persons to the complainant,
however, the nature of weapon actually used by the
accused in causing that hurt was never proved on record.
Admittedly, the said weapon was never recovered during
investigation. Although recovery of the weapon is not a
ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, yet so
as to bring the case within the purview of Sec. 324 IPC,
it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the
injury was caused by the such weapon only, as provided
in Sec. 324 IPC and it it remains not proved, benefit of it
has to go to the accused.
29. In the considered opinion of this court, the Ld.
Trial Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that
the prosecution had proved the ingredients of Sec. 324
IPC. Merely, mentioning of ‘sharp edged weapon’ is not
enough to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s. 324
IPC. In the present case, there was no evidence at all to
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 11 of 14 --
12
show what weapon was used except mentioning as
‘some sharp/pointed object’, which is not enough to
attract Sec. 324 IPC. Thus, the accused persons are
entitled to be acquitted for the offence u/s. 324 IPC.
However, so far as Sec. 323 & 341 IPC are concerned,
all the ingredients to constitute said offences were duly
proved by the prosecution and thus, both the appellant
are liable to be convicted for offences u/s. 323/341/34
IPC. Therefore, the judgment dated 13.10.2025 is set
aside to the extent where the accused persons were
convicted for offence u/s. 324 IPC and the same is
modified to the extent that conviction u/s. 324 IPC is
changed to Sec. 323 IPC and the appellants are convicted
for offences u/s. 323/341/34 IPC.
30. Now coming to the order on sentence dated
02.12.2025, vide which, the convicts have been
sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 30
months and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-
each and further compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been
awarded to the complainant. Now, since the conviction
has been modified from Sec. 324 IPC to Sec. 323 IPC,
order on sentence to the extent of 30 months simple
imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be set
aside and accordingly, the same stands set aside.
31. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that
appellant Mohabbat Ali is an old aged person of about 70
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 12 of 14 --
13
years and suffering from various old aged diseases, due to
which, he is unable to do any work. He has also submitted
that the appellant Mohabbat Ali is having liabilities of his
family consisting four daughters, out of them, two
daughters are unmarried and two daughters are married and
four sons, out of them, one is studying and three sons are
married and they are living separately alongwith their
families on rent. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that during
trial, the accused persons (appellants herein) have suffered
for about 19 years, as the FIR in question was got registered
in the year 2007.
32. Ld. Counsel has further argued that in the present
case, the appellants are entitled to be released on probation
and benefit of doubt should be given them, as the appellants
are not habitual offenders, they are first time offender. He
has prayed that lenient view may be taken against the
appellants.
33. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant
has submitted that no lenient view be taken against the
appellants, as they had caused serious injuries to the
complainant, due to which, complainant had to suffer a lot.
34. Considering the age of the convicts, their liabilities
towards their family and the fact that the convicts have
suffered trial for a long period of 19 years, this court
does not deem it fit to sentence the convicts to
substantive sentence of imprisonment as it would not
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 13 of 14 --
14
only punish the convicts, but also their family. Thus,
they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each for
commission of offence u/s. 323 IPC and they are also
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for commission of
offence u/s. 341 IPC. In addition to it, both the convicts
are directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to
the complainant.
35. Compensation amount has been paid to the
complainant by the appellants/convicts. Fine also paid by
them.
36. In view of the above, the present appeal stands
disposed of.
37. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Surety bonds stand
discharged. Documents, in original, if any be returned back
to the rightful claimant, as per rules.
38. Attested copies of this judgment be supplied to the
parties free of cost.
39. The record of the Ld. Trial court is ordered to be
returned with the attested copy of this judgment.
40. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after due
compliance.
Announced in the open court on
23rd day of May, 2026.
(PUNEET PAHWA)
Special Judge (NDPS)/Addl. Sessions Judge/
North East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
Criminal Appeal No. 301/2025 Mohabbat Ali & Anr. Vs. The State
-- 14 of 14 --