Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 1
of 13
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE DISTRICT :
NORTH-WEST : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-006072-2026
Criminal Appeal No. 109/2026
1. Krishan Murari
S/o Late Sh. Nathi Lal
2. Sonu
S/o Sh. Krishan Muari
Both R/o O-100, Krishan Vihar
Sultanpur, Delhi-110086. … Appellants
Vs.
1. The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi …..Respondent
Date of filing : 19.05.2026
Date of arguments : 15.07.2026
Date of Order : 05.08.2026
O R D E R
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants,
Krishan Murari and Sonu, assailing the judgment of conviction
dated 19.08.2025 and the consequential order on sentence dated
22.04.2026, whereby the Ld. Trial Court convicted them for
offences punishable under Sections 325 and 341 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned
order on sentence, the appellants were sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year, together with a
fine of Rs. 7,500/- each, for the offence under Section 325 IPC,
and simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under
-- 1 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 2
of 13
Section 341 IPC, both sentences having been directed to run
concurrently. Ld. Magistrate further directed that the fine so
realised be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a default clause
stipulating simple imprisonment for a further period of thirty
days in the event of non-payment of the fine amount. It is against
this composite judgment of conviction and the consequential
sentence that the present appeal has been preferred under the
appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, briefly stated,
are that as per the case of the prosecution, on 17.04.2018, the
complainant, Smt. Angoori Devi — wife of appellant no. 1 and
mother of appellant no. 2 — was subjected to a beating at the
hands of the appellants. The occurrence was reported to the
police at or about the relevant time and recorded vide DD No.
107-B, pursuant to which the injured complainant was taken for
medical examination to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital,
where she was examined vide MLC No. 6149 dated 18.04.2018,
recorded at 12:40 a.m. It is significant to note that at that stage,
notwithstanding the medical examination and the recording of
the DD entry, the complainant did not evince any intention of
pursuing legal action against the appellants, and the matter
appears to have rested at that point without further police action
or criminal complaint.
3. It was only on 18.12.2018 — some eight months after the
alleged occurrence — that the complainant approached PS
Sultanpuri with a complaint regarding the incident of 17.04.2018
-- 2 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 3
of 13
and sought legal action against the appellants. Her statement was
recorded, and the present FIR came to be registered on the
strength thereof on 18.12.2018.
4. Investigation into the matter was thereafter conducted by
the police, culminating in the filing of a chargesheet against the
appellants. Upon cognizance being taken, charges under Sections
325 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against them,
to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined five
witnesses: PW-1 Angoori Devi, the complainant; PW-2 ASI Tej
Pal Singh, the first Investigating Officer; PW-3 HC Deepak, the
second Investigating Officer; PW-4 ASI Ashok Kumar, the third
Investigating Officer; and PW-5 Raman Kumar, Clerk from SGM
Hospital.
6. Upon the recording of the statements of the appellants
under Section 313 CrPC (corresponding to Section 351 BNSS),
the entirety of the incriminating circumstances appearing against
them was put to them for their explanation. Both appellants
professed their innocence, contending that they had been falsely
implicated at the instance of the complainant's daughters, Saloni
and Mona, who had allegedly provoked her into lodging the
complaint. In substantiation of this defence, appellant no. 1,
Krishan Murari, examined himself as DW-1.
7. Upon appreciation of the evidence and the rival
submissions advanced by the parties, the Ld. Trial Court held that
-- 3 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 4
of 13
the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt
and accordingly recorded the conviction of the appellants under
Sections 325 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have
preferred the present appeal, assailing the conviction on several
grounds. It is contended, in the first instance, that the impugned
judgment is unsustainable in law inasmuch as material
improvements in the deposition of the complainant, as compared
to her earlier statements, were completely overlooked by the Ld.
Trial Court, and that such improvements ought to have
occasioned a finding adverse to the credibility of the
prosecution's case. It is further contended that the cross-
examination of PW-1 and PW-2 was not conducted with due
diligence and competence by the counsel then representing the
appellants before the Trial Court, on account of which several
material aspects of the defence could not be adequately brought
on record; and that an application subsequently moved on behalf
of the appellants for recalling the said witnesses for further cross-
examination was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order
dated 29.05.2024, thereby foreclosing an opportunity to remedy
the deficiency. It is also urged that the statement of Ms. Radha,
daughter of the complainant, who is stated to have taken the
complainant to hospital on the date of the incident and would
accordingly have been a material witness to the surrounding
circumstances, was neither recorded by the Investigating Officer
during investigation nor was she examined as a witness before
the Trial Court, thereby depriving the defence of an opportunity
to test her version. It is further contended that the Ld. Trial Court
-- 4 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 5
of 13
failed to appreciate the significance of the fact that the FIR came
to be registered nearly eight months after the date of the alleged
incident, a delay for which no satisfactory explanation has been
furnished by the prosecution, and which, it is submitted, ought to
have raised a reasonable doubt as to the genuineness of the
allegations. A further ground of challenge is that the Ld. Trial
Court failed to appreciate the defence set up by appellant no. 1,
to the effect that the complainant's underlying motive was to
secure transfer of the appellant's immovable property in her own
name; that on 17.04.2018 she had quarrelled with him and
demanded that he hand over the title documents of the house in
question, failing which he and his son would face dire
consequences; and that, apprehensive of the complainant's
conduct and the threats held out by her, appellant no. 1 had
transferred the said house in favour of appellant no. 2 by way of
a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt,
Possession Letter and Affidavit, all dated 20.04.2018, for a stated
consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is contended that this sequence
of events, occurring within days of the alleged assault, lends
credence to the defence version that the complainant, acting at
the instigation of her eldest daughter Saloni, falsely implicated
the appellants as a means of pressuring them in relation to the
property. It is further contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to
appreciate that the matter had, in substance, been amicably
settled between the parties soon after the incident, with the
complainant having sought no legal recourse against the
appellants until several months later. On the cumulative effect of
these submissions, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the
impugned judgment of conviction, together with the order on
-- 5 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 6
of 13
sentence, be set aside.
9. No formal reply to the present appeal has been filed on
behalf of the State, and in the absence thereof, Ld. Public
Prosecutor has proceeded to address arguments directly on the
merits of the appeal, opposing the same on the basis of the trial
court record and the evidence led therein.
10. I have heard at length Sh. S.K. Sengar, Ld. Counsel
appearing for the appellants, and Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State, and have carefully perused
the entire record placed before this Court, including the record of
the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, the evidence of the
witnesses examined therein, and the documents exhibited in the
course of trial.
11. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Counsel
submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case
beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as no independent witness
was examined despite the admitted presence of the complainant's
daughter and other persons at the scene of occurrence, whose
testimony, it was submitted, would have lent crucial
corroboration to the prosecution's version had it genuinely
reflected the truth of the matter. It was further submitted that the
testimonies of the prosecution's principal witnesses are riddled
with material contradictions on several aspects touching upon the
manner, time and circumstances of the alleged assault, and that
these discrepancies, when viewed cumulatively, render the
conviction recorded by the Ld. Trial Court unsustainable in law
-- 6 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 7
of 13
and liable to be set aside.
12. At the outset, it may be noted that during the course of
arguments before this Court, Ld. Counsel for the appellants
prayed for a lenient view to be taken on the question of sentence,
as recorded in the proceeding sheet dated 15.07.2026.
13. On behalf of the State, Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted
that the prosecution's case stands duly proved on the evidence led
before the Trial Court; that the witnesses examined by the
prosecution have remained consistent and cogent throughout
their testimony, both in examination-in-chief and in cross-
examination; and that no material contradiction exists in the
record capable of demolishing the prosecution's case in its
entirety. It was submitted that nothing of substance emerged in
the cross-examination of the complainant to controvert or
dislodge her testimony, and that her version of the incident has
remained consistent both in her statement before the police and
in her deposition before the Trial Court, whereas the appellants,
despite raising an elaborate defence, failed to substantiate the
same through cogent evidence. It was further submitted that the
motive sought to be attributed to the complainant for the alleged
false implication — namely, a design to grab the appellants'
immovable property — is unsupported by any documentary
evidence establishing the existence of a loan transaction, an
outstanding debt, or any sum of money extended by the
appellants to the complainant that could plausibly have furnished
a motive for such a false case. It was accordingly urged that the
Ld. Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and the attendant
-- 7 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 8
of 13
facts and circumstances of the case, and arrived at the correct
conclusion in recording the conviction of the appellants,
warranting no interference by this Court in appeal.
Findings
14. It is well settled that the powers of an appellate court,
while hearing an appeal against conviction, are as extensive as
those of the trial court, and that the appellate court is entitled —
indeed, obliged — to re-appreciate the entirety of the evidence on
record and all attendant facts and circumstances in arriving at its
own independent conclusion on the question of guilt or
innocence of the accused. The appellate court is not confined
merely to examining whether the view taken by the trial court
was a possible view; rather, it must itself weigh the evidence,
assess the credibility of witnesses to the extent discernible from
the record, and satisfy itself whether the prosecution has, in fact,
discharged the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable
doubt. An appeal decided without such independent appreciation
of the evidence, and without the recording of independent
findings by the appellate court on the several issues arising for its
consideration, would itself be rendered erroneous in law and
liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
15. In the present case, Ld. Defence Counsel, during the
course of arguments, submitted that on the fateful day, i.e.,
17.04.2018, a quarrel had taken place between the complainant
and her husband, appellant no. 1, in the course of which the
complainant picked up a danda with the intention of striking him
and their son, appellant no. 2, and that when appellant no. 1
-- 8 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 9
of 13
attempted to snatch the said danda from her hands in order to
avert the assault, she sustained a hairline fracture in the ensuing
struggle. It was further submitted that this was, in essence, a case
arising out of a sudden domestic altercation rather than a
premeditated or deliberate assault, and that immediately after the
incident, the matter stood amicably settled between the parties,
with the complainant, at that stage, seeking no legal action
against the appellants — a circumstance which, it was submitted,
is itself indicative of the essentially trivial and transient nature of
the dispute as it then stood.
16. It is settled law that in criminal trials the burden lies
squarely and throughout upon the prosecution to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that this
burden does not shift merely by reason of a defence being raised
by the accused, however weak. It is equally well established that
where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on
record — one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the
other consistent with his innocence — the view favourable to the
accused ought ordinarily to be adopted, since the benefit of any
genuine and reasonable doubt must enure to the accused rather
than to the prosecution. Reliance in this regard is placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v.
Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, AIR 2016 SC 3218, wherein these
foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence were reiterated.
17. In the case in hand, the occurrence of the incident in
question is itself not in dispute, nor is it disputed before this
Court that the complainant sustained a fracture of her wrist in the
-- 9 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 10
of 13
course thereof. This position stands independently corroborated
by the medico-legal record of the complainant bearing MLC No.
6149/18, Ex. PX-1 — a document expressly admitted by the
appellants under Section 294 CrPC and thus requiring no further
formal proof — as also by the X-ray report and the
accompanying X-ray plates, exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A and Ex.
PW-5/B respectively, proved through the testimony of PW-5, the
Clerk from SGM Hospital. PW-1 Angoori Devi has furnished a
coherent, consistent and detailed account of the incident as it
occurred, narrating the manner in which the assault took place
and the circumstances leading to her injury, and a careful perusal
of the record discloses that nothing of substance emerged in her
cross-examination capable of dislodging or meaningfully
controverting her testimony on the core facts constituting the
offence.
18. The case of the prosecution hinges primarily upon the
testimony of PW-1 Angoori Devi, and it bears reiteration that her
cross-examination yielded nothing capable of controverting her
version of events. This Court has independently examined the
record in light of the grounds urged in the memorandum of
appeal, including the contentions regarding non-examination of
independent witnesses, the alleged inadequacy of cross-
examination conducted by erstwhile counsel, and the delay in
registration of the FIR. However, given that the occurrence of the
incident has not, in substance, been disputed by Ld. Defence
Counsel in the course of arguments before this Court; that the
injury sustained by the complainant, being duly corroborated by
contemporaneous medical evidence, is likewise undisputed; and
-- 10 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 11
of 13
that Ld. Defence Counsel has, in the ultimate analysis, confined
his submissions before this Court to a prayer for leniency in the
matter of sentence rather than substantively assailing the finding
of guilt recorded by the Trial Court, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Ld. Trial Court rightly appreciated
the evidence on record and correctly recorded the conviction of
the appellants under Sections 325 and 341 read with Section 34
IPC. The said finding of guilt is, accordingly, upheld.
19. On the question of sentence, Ld. Defence Counsel
submitted that matrimonial discord has long subsisted between
the complainant and appellant no. 1, predating even the incident
which forms the subject-matter of the present proceedings, and
that pursuant to orders passed by the concerned court in
matrimonial proceedings, appellant no. 1 presently pays
maintenance to the complainant under Section 125 CrPC — a
circumstance which, it was urged, itself reflects a continuing, if
strained, relationship of mutual obligation between the parties
rather than one of unmitigated hostility. It was further submitted
that the complainant is presently bed-ridden, having been
rendered paralysed on account of ailment, and that the appellants
continue to be the sole bread-earners of the family, providing for
her day-to-day financial needs notwithstanding the pendency of
these very proceedings against them.
20. This Court has perused the entire record, including the
report submitted by the Probation Officer, from which it emerges
that the appellants — father and son — continue to reside in the
very same household as the complainant, notwithstanding the
-- 11 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 12
of 13
criminal proceedings between them. The family, as recorded in
the Probation Officer's report, belongs to the poorer strata of
society, with limited means of livelihood. The neighbours
interviewed in the course of the probation inquiry have uniformly
deposed to the good moral character and conduct of the
appellants, stating that no untoward incident or controversy
involving them has ever been witnessed in the locality, and that
they are regarded as peaceable and good neighbours.
21. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case — namely, that the complainant did not, in the first
instance, seek any legal action against the appellants immediately
after the incident, and that it was only after a lapse of
approximately eight months that she approached the police
afresh, resulting in registration of the present case; that there is
no other male member in the complainant's family presently
available to earn a livelihood for her; that the appellants have
clean antecedents, with no other criminal case having been
registered against either of them, either before or after the
registration of the present case; that the parties continue to reside
together as a family notwithstanding the pendency of these
proceedings; and that the appellants are themselves stated to be
the principal source of financial support for the complainant, who
is presently bed-ridden — I am of the considered opinion that the
ends of justice would be better served by extending to the
appellants the benefit of probation, rather than subjecting them to
actual incarceration, which would in all likelihood leave the
complainant herself, along with the family, without means of
support. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the
-- 12 of 13 --
CA No. 109/2026
Krishan Murari etc Vs. The State
	Page 13
of 13
appellants/convicts are released on probation of good conduct for
a period of one year, in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment
imposed by the Ld. Trial Court, upon their furnishing a personal
probation bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, with one surety
in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of this Court. During
the said period of probation, the appellants shall maintain peace
and good behaviour, and shall conform to the standards of
conduct expected of them. They shall further remain under the
supervision of the concerned Probation Officer, to whom they
shall report as and when directed, and the Probation Officer shall,
in turn, furnish a quarterly report to this the Ld. Trial Court
regarding the conduct and behaviour of the convicts during the
currency of the probation period. It is, however, made clear that
the order of the Ld. Trial Court imposing a fine of Rs. 7,500/-
upon each of the appellants shall remain undisturbed and in full
force, and upon realisation thereof, the fine amount shall be paid
over to the victim as compensation under Section 357 CrPC, in
terms of the direction already made by the Trial Court. Ld.
defence counsel submitted that fine of Rs. 7,500/- each has
already been deposited by both the appellants in the Ld. Trial
Court.
22. A copy of this order be supplied to the appellants. A copy
of this order, together with the Trial Court record, be sent to the
Ld. Trial Court. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 05th August, 2026.
(NISHA SAHAY SAXENA)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi
-- 13 of 13 --