Full Judgment Text
$~9 to 12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 9 February, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 9 February, 2026
~9
+ CRL.A. 1427/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2091/2025
MOHD. SHADAB .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhijat Bal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nusrat Hossain, Mr. Manish
Kumar Singh, Mr. Shantanu Mishra,
Mr. Satyam Gupta, Mr. Harsh
Vardhan, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Insp. Subhash Chand, PS Darya Ganj
WITH
~10
+ CRL.A. 1497/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2188/2025
MOHD WASEEM @ BHURA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Nusrat Hossain, Mr. Manish
Kumar Singh, Mr. Shantanu Mishra,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Insp. Subhash Chand, PS Darya Ganj
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 27
~11
+ CRL.A. 1499/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2193/2025
SALEEMUDDIN @ SALIM .....Appellant
Through:
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Insp. Subhash Chand, PS Darya Ganj
WITH
~12
+ CRL.A. 1512/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2207/2025
MOHD ATIF MALIK @ LALA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Nusrat Hossain, Mr. Manish
Kumar Singh, Mr. Shantanu Mishra,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Insp. Subhash Chand, PS Darya Ganj
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Madhu Jain, J.(Oral)
BACKGROUND
1. Present appeals have been filed on behalf of the Appellants under
Section 415 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( hereinafter,
‘BNSS’ ) assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 27
th th
sentence dated 6 September, 2025 and 12 September, 2025 respectively,
passed by the ld. ASJ (FTC)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
whereby the Appellants have been convicted in Sessions Case No.
28476/2016 arising out of FIR No. 224/2015 registered at P.S. Darya Ganj
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
( hereinafter ‘IPC’ ).
2. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the
appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a
fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, they have been
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for
the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
BRIEF FACTS:
th
3. Facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 6 April, 2015, DD
No. 2A was received in PS Darya Ganj regarding a quarrel near Turkman
Gate, Delhi. On receiving the said information, PW-11 SI Ved Pal, along
with PW-22 Ct. Girivar, reached at the spot. An agitated crowd was present
there. On inquiry, it was learnt that a motorcycle had touched a car, which
led to a quarrel. During the quarrel, the occupants of the car allegedly
assaulted the motorcycle rider. The injured had already been taken to LNJP
Hospital.
4. Thereafter, I.O. went to LNJP Hospital, where he was informed by Ct.
Ajay that the injured had been declared dead by the doctor. The
Investigating Officer collected the MLC of the deceased and seized the
clothes of the deceased.
5. This led to registration of FIR No. 224/2015 under section 302/34
IPC. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was then conducted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 3 of 27
th
6. Vide order dated 6 July, 2015, a copy of the charge-sheet was
supplied to the accused persons under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated
th
20 July, 2015, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under
Section 209 Cr.P.C.
7. The charges were then framed in the matter before the sessions court
th
vide order on charge dated 4 December, 2015 under Section 302/34 IPC &
Section 302 read with 149 IPC against all the five accused persons to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. During the trial, accused Sheikh Ameenuddin @ Ameenuddin
Pehlwan expired, and the proceedings against him stood abated vide order
th
dated 4 May, 2024.
9. The ld. Trial Court has mainly relied on the testimonies of PW-2, PW-
3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-9, as, according to the prosecution’s case, they are
the eyewitnesses to the incident. While believing the testimonies of these
witnesses, the ld. Trial Court has discussed them as under:
“3. PW-2 Mohd. Fahad, the son of the deceased,
is an alleged eyewitness to the incident. He
deposed that on 05.04.2015, he, his younger
brother PW-3 Mohd. Kaif, and their father Sh.
Shahnawaj (since deceased) were returning to
their house from their grandmother’s residence on
a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-1SR-
5852. At about 11:30 p.m., when they reached near
Turkman Gate, there was a traffic jam. At that
time, a silver-grey i-20 car bearing registration
No. DL-2CAE-8426 came from the side of
Ramleela Ground. While his father was trying to
manoeuvre the motorcycle out of the jam, it slightly
struck the said car.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 4 of 27
He further deposed that accused Shadab was
driving the car, accused Ameen was seated beside
him, and some ladies were sitting on the rear seat.
Upon the motorcycle touching the car, accused
Shadab abused them in filthy language, came out
of the car, and started beating his father. Accused
Ameen also abused them. He further stated that a
red-coloured Activa scooty bearing registration
No. DL-2SAP-8057, carrying three boys, reached
the spot and they also started beating his father.
Accused Ameen Pahalwan allegedly exhorted
others to kill his father, claiming himself to be the
“dada” of the area.
He further deposed that his uncle Wasim reached
the spot, but accused Shadab, Wasim @ Bhura,
Salim, and Atif @ Lala continued beating his
father, while accused Ameen repeatedly exhorted
them to kill him. Thereafter, his younger uncle
Suhail arrived, upon which the three accused who
had come on the scooty fled on foot, leaving the
scooty at the spot, while the remaining accused left
in the car. His uncle Suhail took the injured to
LNJP Hospital in a rickshaw. Later, PW-2 came to
know that his father had expired.
During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that his
father was driving the motorcycle, PW-3 was
seated in the middle, and he was sitting at the rear.
He admitted that the accused persons first abused
his father while sitting in the car and thereafter
assaulted him. He stated that accused Shadab
slapped his father and accused Ameen exhorted the
others to kill him. He admitted that he did not
approach the nearby police post for help and that
shops with CCTV cameras were present near the
spot. He further admitted that he knew the names
of the accused prior to the incident. He denied the
suggestions that the accused were falsely
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 5 of 27
implicated or that he was tutored by family
members, police officials, or any political person.
XXX
PW-3 Mohd. Kaif, the younger son of the deceased,
is also an alleged eyewitness. He deposed that on
15.04.2015 at about 11:20 p.m., he, his brother
Fahad, and their father were returning from their
grandmother’s house on their father’s motorcycle.
Near Haj Manzil, Turkman Gate, there was a
traffic jam, and while his father was taking out the
motorcycle, it slightly struck a silver-grey i-20 car
bearing registration No. DL-2CAE-8426.
Thereafter, accused Shadab abused his father,
came out of the car, and assaulted him. Accused
Ameen Pahalwan also joined in beating his father.
He further deposed that three more persons
arrived on a red-coloured scooty bearing
registration No. DL-9SAP-8057 and they too
assaulted his father. Accused Ameen allegedly
shouted that he was the “dada” of the area and
exhorted others to kill his father. His father fell
unconscious on the road. His uncles Wasim and
Suhail subsequently reached the spot, upon which
all five accused fled—accused Ameen and Shadab
in the car, and the other three on foot. His father
was taken to LNJP Hospital, where he later died.
In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the car
came from the side of Ramleela Maidan and that
two police personnel were present at the nearby
police post. He admitted that around 40–50
persons had gathered at the spot. He stated that he
came to know the names of the accused the next
day through posters and that he did not provide
any physical description of the assailants to the
police. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely
implicated the accused or that he had not
witnessed the incident.
XXX
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 6 of 27
PW-7 Sh. Suhail, the younger brother of the
deceased, is cited as an eyewitness to the incident.
He deposed that on 05.04.2015 at about 11:20–
11:25 p.m., he was accompanying the baraat of his
friend Anas, which was proceeding towards
Turkman Gate. When he reached near Haj Manzil,
he noticed a quarrel taking place. On approaching
the crowd, he saw his elder brother Waseem
attempting to intervene, while his other elder
brother Shahnawaz (since deceased) was being
beaten by Ameen Pahalwan, Waseem @ Bhura,
Atif @ Lala, Shadab, and Saleem, who were
already known to him.
He further deposed that the accused were
mercilessly beating his brother with fist and leg
blows while he was lying unconscious on the road.
He tried to rescue his brother, but the accused
continued the assault. According to him, accused
Ameen Pahalwan was loudly exhorting the others
to kill his brother and claiming himself to be the
“dada” of the area. Thereafter, the accused
persons left the spot along with the car. He
removed his brother to LNJP Hospital in a
rickshaw, where he was declared dead. He also
stated that his nephews Fahad and Kaif were
present at the spot and were crying for help. He
further deposed that at about 4:30 a.m., the police
met him at the spot, made inquiries, and he
disclosed the names of the accused. He proved his
statement regarding identification of the dead body
as Ex. PW-7/A.
In his cross-examination, PW-7 stated that he
witnessed the incident for about 5–7 minutes. He
deposed that he first noticed his brother Waseem at
the spot and that no baraati accompanied him to
the place of occurrence. He admitted that he did
not call the PCR as he was busy taking his brother
to the hospital. He stated that he reached the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 7 of 27
hospital at about 11:45 p.m. and his brother was
examined in his presence. He further stated that
there were no bloodstains at the spot and that the
motorcycle of his brother and a scooty were parked
there. He admitted that a police picket was situated
within about 20 steps from the spot. He also stated
that he did not know when or why the quarrel had
started before his arrival. He denied the
suggestions that he was not present at the spot or
that the accused were falsely implicated, and
further denied that his nephews Fahad and Kaif
were planted witnesses.
XXX
PW-9 Sh. Waseemuddin was the brother of the
deceased as well as one of the eyewitnesses of the
alleged incident. He deposed that on 05.04.2015 at
around 11:10/11:15 p.m., he left his house to go to
the area of Ganj Meer Khan to attend a party. He
further deposed that at about 11:20 p.m., when he
reached near Meer Haj Manzil, Dargah Faiz-e-
Illahi, he saw a crowd. Thereafter, he entered the
crowd and saw that Ameen Pahalwan, his son
Shadab, his nephew Salim, and their associates
Atif @ Lala and Waseem @ Bhura were brutally
beating his brother Shahnawaz. He further
deposed that they were kicking and punching his
brother and that his nephews, Fahad and Kaif,
were crying for help. At that time, Ameen
Pahalwan was saying, “maar do isko jaan se taki
sabko pata chal jaye ki main ilake ka dada hu.” He
further deposed that after seeing the incident, he
made a call to the police at 100 number and
thereafter intervened, and found that his brother
had become unconscious. Despite this, all the
aforesaid persons continued beating his brother
Shahnawaz.
He further deposed that in the meantime, his
younger brother Suhail arrived at the spot, after
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 8 of 27
which two of the accused fled in a grey-coloured i-
20 car, while the remaining offenders also ran
away, though he could not say whether they ran
away in any vehicle or not. He further deposed that
his brother Suhail took Shahnawaz to LNJP
Hospital in a rickshaw and that he also reached
there and came to know that his brother had been
declared dead by the doctor. He further deposed
that the motorcycle of his brother Shahnawaz
bearing registration No. DL-1SR-5852 was seized
by the police in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-9/A, and that one red-coloured Activa scooty
was also seized by the police in his presence vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-9/B. He further deposed that
at around 4:30 a.m. on 06.04.2015, he met the IO,
who made inquiries from him, his nephew Mohd.
Fahad, and his brother Suhail. He further deposed
that thereafter he went to the spot, pointed out the
place of occurrence, and the IO prepared the site
plan Ex. PW-8/DA at his instance. He proved his
statement regarding dead body identification as
Ex. PW-9/C and the dead body handing-over memo
as Ex. PW-9/D. He also deposed about the
apprehension of accused Waseem @ Bhura on his
identification and proved the arrest memo Ex. PW-
9/E.
This witness was cross-examined at length. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that his statement
was recorded by the police on six occasions during
the investigation, the first being on 05.04.2015,
though he did not remember the dates and months
of recording of his statements on other occasions.
He stated that his last statement was recorded on
11.06.2015. He admitted that there was a police
post near the spot of the incident at Turkman Gate.
He further deposed that none of the accused
assaulted or abused him and that neither he nor his
brother Suhail approached the police post. He also
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 9 of 27
deposed that no blood was oozing from the body of
his deceased brother and that his clothes were not
blood-stained. He further deposed that he reached
the hospital along with his brother Suhail and that
his brother Suhail got the deceased admitted. He
denied the suggestion that his family had cordial
relations with the local ex-MLA Sh. Shoaib Iqbal
or that he had tutored them to falsely implicate the
accused persons. He further deposed that his
statement was first recorded at about 6:30 a.m. on
06.04.2015 at PP Turkman Gate. He denied the
suggestion that he did not know the accused
persons prior to the date of the incident and had
named them at the instance of Shoaib Iqbal and the
then SHO Anil Sharma of PS Chandni Mahal. He
also denied the suggestion that none of them,
including himself, Fahad, Kaif, or Suhail, had
witnessed any quarrel involving Shahnawaz on
05.04.2015.”
10. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
persons denied all the charges against them. They claimed that they were
innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
11. The ld. Trial Court vide the impugned judgment convicted the
accused persons and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The relevant
paragraph is re-produced hereinbelow:
“122. Since accused Aminuddin @ Aminuddin
Pahalwan exhorted other accused persons to kill
deceased Shahnawaz and the other accused persons
assaulted the deceased in pursuance of the said
exhortation, as all the accused persons shared common
intention, the prosecution has successfully proved that
the accused persons intended to kill deceased
Shahnawaz who was killed by the accused persons and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 10 of 27
hence the case of the prosecution squarely falls within
the purview of clause firstly of Section 300 IPC.
Secondly, as per the opinion of PW-12 Dr. Amandeep
Kaur, the death in the present case occurred as a result
of the combined effect of brain damage and shock
consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head and
trunk respectively and brain damage, shock and liver
laceration were individually and collectively sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the
case of the prosecution also falls within the purview of
clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. Thus, the
prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of
offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC against
accused persons namely Aminuddin @ Aminuddin
Pahalwan (since deceased), Mohd. Waseem @ Bhura,
Mohd. Shadab, Mohd. Atif Malik @ Lala, Saleemuddin
@ Salim, beyond reasonable doubt .
123. Accordingly, accused persons namely Mohd.
Waseem @ Bhura, Mohd. Shadab, Mohd. Atif Malik
@ Lala, Saleemuddin @ Salim are hereby convicted
for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC.”
12. As can be seen from the above, the ld. Trial Court has held the
Appellants are guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and has convicted them
accordingly. In terms of the impugned order on sentence, the Appellants
were directed to undergo imprisonment for life. The impugned order on
sentence reads as under:
“ 17. This court is of the considered opinion that
family members of deceased Shahnawaz have
suffered mental trauma, inconvenience, hardship,
disappointment and frustration and an adequate
compensation needs to be granted to them. The
convicts do not have the capacity to pay compensation
to the legal heirs ofcircumstances. It has also been
further held that death sentence should not be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 11 of 27
awarded except in rarest of rare cases when the
alternative option is available.
11. Arguments and the rival contentions on behalf of
all the convicts and State have been considered
thoroughly. In the present case the aggravating
circumstances have outweighed the mitigating
circumstances but still the present case does not fall
within the purview of rarest of rare doctrine.
12. In view of facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of the Ld. Defence counsels for the
convicts and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, convicts
namely Mohd. Waseem @ Bhura, Mohd. Shadab,
Mohd. Atif Malik @ Lala & Saleemuddin @ Salim
are hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (each) for the offence
punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for commission
of murder of deceased Shahnawaz. In case of default
to pay fine, the convicts shall undergo simple
imprisonment of two months.
13. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all
the convicts for the period already undergone by them
during the trial.
14. Grant of compensation is an important
component of the order on sentence. As per Section
2(wa) of Cr.P.C., victim means a person who has
suffered any loss or injury caused by the reason
deceased Shahnawaz. Accordingly, in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case and submissions
made, let the present case be sent to Ld. Secretary,
DLSA, Central District, THC, Delhi for
determination and award of adequate compensation
to the legal heirs of deceased Shahnawaz under Sec.
357A Cr.P.C.”
13. The appeals against the impugned judgment were filed on behalf of
th
the Appellants, and on 14 October, 2025, the appeals were admitted. Vide
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 12 of 27
th
order dated 19 December, 2025 the Predecessor Bench had granted interim
st st
suspension of sentence from 01 January, 2026 to 31 January, 2026, in
CRL.A. 1427/2025, on account of advance stage of pregnancy of the wife of
th
the concerned accused. The relevant portion of order dated 19 December,
2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“7.Keeping in mind the overall facts and
circumstances, particularly the advanced stage of
pregnancy of the appellant’s wife and the absence of
immediate family support, and considering the present
application on humanitarian grounds, the appellant is
granted interim suspension of sentence
from 01.01.2026 to 31.01.2026, on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/-, with one surety
of the like amount, one of whom shall be a close
family member of the appellant, to the satisfaction of
the learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate, subject
to the following conditions:-
(i) Appellant shall surrender his passport, if any,
before the learned Trial Court. In case he does not
possess a passport, he shall so state before the learned
Trial Court by way of an affidavit.
(ii) Appellant shall provide his residential address,
contact details and mobile numbers to the learned
Trial Court.
(iii) Appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity
and shall no communicate with or come in contact with
victim or her family, directly or indirectly.
(iv) Appellant shall also, along with bonds, file an
affidavit stating about his clean antecedents and no
involvement in any other criminal case.
8. The appellant shall surrender in jail on 31.01.2026
by 5.00 PM.
9. The present application, accordingly, stands
disposed of.
10. A copy of this Order be immediately sent to the
learned Trial Court and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 13 of 27
Jail Superintendent for information and necessary
compliance.”
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANTS
i. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Shadab, the Appellant in CRL.A.
1427/2025, submits that the evidence on record, particularly the medical
evidence tendered by the doctor from MAMC Hospital, clearly shows that
the deceased was suffering from a serious coronary condition, with about
80% blockage in the arteries. It is submitted that there was no external injury
or fracture on the body of the deceased, nor was any vital part injured. Even
the post-mortem report records that the deceased had gone into shock, which
may have caused the death.
ii. It is further contended that the incident was at best a case of road rage,
which occurred suddenly, in the spur of the moment and in a fit of anger,
and that none of the accused had any intention to kill the deceased. Ld
Senior Counsel also submits that no weapon of offence has been recovered
in the present case.
iii. Attention of this Court is further drawn to the fact that the place of
incident was situated barely 100 metres from a police chowki, and despite
the presence of the brother and other relatives of the deceased at the spot, no
attempt was made either to stop the incident or to immediately take the
deceased to the hospital, which renders the prosecution version doubtful.
iv. It is further submitted that the eyewitnesses examined by the
prosecution are all related to the deceased, and their testimonies do not
inspire confidence. There is no prior animosity between the parties. The
post-mortem report itself shows that the deceased had an enlarged heart,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 14 of 27
weighing about 400 grams, with complete blockage in the coronary arteries,
thereby strengthening the submission that the deceased died due to a heart
attack and not due to the alleged injuries.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RESPONDENT
i. On the hand, Mr. Bahri, ld. APP submits that although the incident
arose out of a case of road rage, the manner in which the injuries were
inflicted upon the deceased clearly shows that the accused subjected him to
a merciless beating, which ultimately resulted in his death.
ii. Ld. Counsel further submits that there are sufficient eyewitnesses on
record to support the conviction and, in any event, the case would, at the
highest, fall within the ambit of Section 304 IPC.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
14. We have heard ld. Counsels for the Appellants and the ld. APP for
the State. The issue for consideration is whether the case of the Appellants
has been rightly covered under Section 302 of the IPC.
15. A perusal of the evidence would reveal that the incident in question
arose out of a sudden road rage altercation. The evidence on record
establishes that the incident arose out of a unpredicted quarrel triggered by a
minor traffic mishap. There is no material to indicate any prior animosity or
pre-planning. The assault, as described by the prosecution witnesses
themselves, was by fist and leg blows. No weapon of offence has been used
or recovered.
16. The statements of PW-7 and PW-9, insofar as they claim to have
reached the spot while independently proceeding to a baraat and a party
respectively, appear improbable and raise doubts as to their natural presence
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 15 of 27
at the scene of occurrence, and therefore, cannot be relied upon without
corroboration.
17. It is apposite to refer to the post-mortem report of the deceased. The
post-mortem report of the deceased mentions that there were internal as well
as external injuries. There were injuries on the head with internal bleeding
under the scalp, which indicate blunt force trauma to the head, as mentioned
in the post-mortem report. Injury Nos. 5 and 6, as mentioned in the post-
mortem report, correspond to the internal injuries. Furthermore, in the
abdominal region, the liver had sustained grievous injury. This is sufficient
to conclude that the injuries suffered by the deceased were grievous in
nature and were, to some extent, life-endangering. The relevant extract
whereof is quoted hereinbelow:
“EXTERNAL EXAMINATION
5. A reddish contusion measuring 2.5 cm × 1.4 cm was
present on the occipital region of the scalp, situated
just to the left of the occipital protuberance.
6. A reddish contusion measuring 1 cm × 0.8 cm was
present on the left parietal eminence.
Xxx
X. INTERNAL EXAMINATION
A) Head:
The scalp showed extravasation of blood in areas
measuring 2.2 cm × 1.4 cm and 1 cm × 0.5 cm,
corresponding to injury Nos. 5 and 6, respectively. The
brain weighed 1316 grams. Subarachnoid
haemorrhage was present over the right parietal
region. The brain was found to be oedematous, with
flattening of gyri and obliteration of sulci.
XXX
D) Abdomen
Liver weight was 1240 grams. Lacerations measuring
2 cm and 1.8 cm in length were present on the anterior
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 16 of 27
surface of the left lobe of the liver, with subcapsular
bleeding over areas measuring 5 cm × 3.5 cm and 6
cm × 4.5 cm respectively, each containing about 5 ml
of blood. On cut section, the surface lacerations were
found to extend into the parenchyma, with disruption of
the parenchyma of the entire left lobe and the adjacent
part of the right lobe, involving about 30% of the liver,
with the presence of bleeding amounting to
approximately 150 ml.”
18. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the findings in the
very same post-mortem report concerning the condition of the heart. The
report clearly records the presence of pre-existing cardiac disease. The heart
was enlarged, and the right coronary artery showed 100% blockage. The
relevant portion has been extracted hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 17 of 27
19. During her testimony, PW-10, Dr. Jyoti Barwa, Assistant Professor,
Department of Forensic Medicine, who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased Shahnawaj, deposed that the
deceased was already suffering from heart disease with significant coronary
blockage, and that a person with such blockage is at a higher risk of
suffering a heart attack. The relevant portion has been extracted
hereinbelow:
“ It is correct that when a patient is brought to the
Emergency, the attending doctor observes most of the
external injuries found on the body of the patient and
the same are reflected in the MLC. It is correct that I
have not mentioned in my post-mortem report Ex.
PW10/A that the external or internal injuries
reflected between points A to A and B to B were either
sufficient to cause death or were likely to cause death.
It is correct that the deceased was having 80%
blockage in the left anterior artery and 100%
blockage in the lumen of the right coronary artery. It
is correct that once a person has this kind of blockage
in the arteries of the heart, he/she is a high-risk case
for a heart attack . Volunteered: even a lesser
percentage of blockage of the arteries can be subject to
a heart attack, and it is also a known fact that patients
with 100% blockage can survive due to the
development of collateral circulation.
It is correct that during the post-mortem conducted in
this case, I did not observe any development of
collateral circulation of blood. Again said, it is not
possible to observe this during post-mortem
examination. Volunteered: I preserved the tissues for
obtaining the histopathological report. The normal
weight of the human heart is between 250 grams to 300
grams, depending upon the build of the person. It is
correct that in this case, I found that the heart of the
deceased was enlarged, weighing about 400 grams. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 18 of 27
is correct that during the post-mortem examination, I
found that the coronaries of the heart were hard and
calcified, gritty throughout their course, with
atherosclerosis showing blockage of the lumen, which
means that there were deposits known as plaques
throughout the arteries of the heart, blocking the
supply of blood to the heart. It is correct that in the
histopathological report it is recorded that the
coronary vessels showed complex atheromatous
plaques with evidence of focal revascularisation,
recanalisation, medial calcification and patency, which
means that the deceased had earlier suffered from a
heart attack and was in the healing process.
Volunteered: this also implies that the patient had not
suffered any acute ischaemic episode. It is correct that
the deceased had also earlier suffered a heart attack.
20. These findings clearly show that the deceased was suffering from
severe and advanced coronary artery disease, which made him highly
vulnerable to cardiac failure or shock, especially during physical exertion or
emotional stress. The death, therefore, cannot be attributed solely to the
assault, as the pre-existing cardiac condition was a substantial contributing
factor. The medical evidence, therefore, weakens the direct causal link
between the blunt force injuries and the death, since it cannot be
conclusively established that the injuries, by themselves, were sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
21. For a conviction under Section 302 IPC, two essential ingredients are
required to be proved, namely mens rea (intention) and actus reus (the act
done). The facts and circumstances of the present case do not satisfy the test
of murder, as the Appellants did not have the intention to cause the death of
the deceased. No weapon was used, nor any recovery effected of any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 19 of 27
weapon. The whole incident shows that it was a spur of the moment
occurrence, as the motorcycle of the deceased touched the car of the accused
persons, and in a fit of anger they started beating the deceased without even
having an iota of intention or any inkling that he had a heart condition or
that this may led to his death. Furthermore, the medical record clearly shows
that the deceased was already suffering from a serious pre-existing heart
condition. In these circumstances, the acts attributed to the Appellants
cannot be said to be sufficient, by itself, to cause the death of the deceased in
the ordinary course of nature or any acts of the appellants done with an
intention to cause death. Consequently, the essential ingredients of Section
302 IPC are not made out. The aforesaid legal position has been
unequivocally reiterated by the Supreme Court in Maniklal Sahu v. State of
Chhattisgarh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1960 . The relevant portion has been
reproduced hereinbelow:
“26. To come within the definition of
Section 299 IPC, the act of the accused should cause
death and it must be (a) with the intention of causing
death, or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily
injuries as is likely to cause death, or (c) with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
The question when a person could be said to have
caused death by his act needs to be answered taking
into consideration the Explanations
1 and 2 respectively to Section 299 of the IPC.
27. The simpler case is where death results directly
and immediately from the act itself. Equally, when
death ensues as a natural or necessary consequence
flowing from that act, there can be no hesitation in
holding that the act caused the death. For “Thirdly” of
Section 300 to apply the requirement is, that the injury
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 20 of 27
inflicted should be found sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, a high degree of
probability, in the ordinary way of nature, that death
would ensue on the injuries. The difficulty arises when
there are recognisable contributory causes leading to
death, and the Court is called upon to consider in such
case the relative effect and strength of the different
causes in bringing about the effect i.e., the death, and
then to ascertain whether the responsibility of the
death could be assigned to a particular act which is not
as proximate, or immediate.”
22. The case of the Appellants would also not fall within the ambit of
Section 304 IPC. As reiterated by the Supreme Court on several occasions,
the applicability of Section 304 depends upon the presence of intention or
knowledge in relation to causing death. Keeping the settled principles in
mind, the present case does not attract liability under Section 304 IPC,
having regard to the nature of the injuries, the absence of any weapon, and
the pre-existing medical condition of the deceased. This Court may refers to
the decision of the Supreme Court in Nandkumar v. State of Gujarat , 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2374 , wherein it has been reiterated that for an offence to
fall within Section 304, there must be either an intention to cause such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or at least knowledge that the act
was likely to cause death. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereinbelow:
“5.7. In other words, where the two ingredients
namely that the infliction of bodily injury on
deceased was caused intentionally and secondly
that it was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature, are satisfied, the
offence would amount to murder. There may be
circumstances which may emerge from the facts
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 21 of 27
and evidence of a given case that the offence
becomes ‘culpable homicide not amounting to
murder’.
2
5.8. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab and further
in Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of
3
Maharashtra , this Court stated that divided into
two Parts, Section 304, IPC deals with the
situations where ‘culpable homicide’ would not
be a murder. The conceptualisation of the
‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’
were explained in the following way, as quoted in
1
para 4 of the Kesar Singh ,
“If an injury is inflicted with the knowledge and
intention that it is likely to cause death, but with
no intention to cause death the offence would
fall within the definition of Section 304 Part I,
however, if there is no intention to cause such an
injury, but there is knowledge that such an
injury can cause death, the offence would fall
within the definition of Section 304 Part II.
Thus, is intention. If intention to cause such an
injury as is likely to cause death, is established,
the offence would fall under Part I but where no
such intention is established and only knowledge
that the injury is likely to cause death, it would
fall under Part II.”
23. As observed by the Supreme Court in Sompal Singh v. State of
U.P. , (2014) 7 SCC 316, there exists a very thin and subtle line of
demarcation between ‘hurt which endangers life’ and an ‘injury which is
likely to cause death’. Consequently, in cases where death ensues, it often
becomes difficult to determine whether the accused is liable under Section
325 IPC for causing grievous hurt or under Section 304 IPC for culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
24. In the present case, however, keeping in view the fact that no lethal
weapon was used, the Appellants had no knowledge of the deceased’s pre-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 22 of 27
existing medical condition, and there was no intention to cause death, the
essential ingredients required to attract liability under Section 304 IPC are
not made out. The case, therefore, stands clearly outside the ambit of Section
304 IPC.
25. The case of the Appellants would in fact be covered by the decision of
the Supreme Court in Mayandi v. State , (2010) 11 SCC 774 . In the said
case, the deceased was attacked with a sickle and sustained several injuries,
and subsequently died. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the
Appellants under Section 302 IPC and altered the conviction to one under
Section 326 IPC, holding that the deceased was suffering from a serious
heart ailment which was not within the knowledge of the Appellants, and
that the medical evidence revealed that the deceased had earlier undergone
angioplasty and had suffered a heart attack.
“7. PW 13 also noted that the deceased had died
due to complications arising out of myocardial
infarction and admitted that in the post-mortem
report there was no suggestion that the death
was a result of the injuries.
The learned counsel has also brought to our
notice the death summary (Ext. P-8) which had
been recorded in Apollo Hospital by the
attending doctor (PW 8) who stated that as the
deceased had lost a great deal of blood as the
blood vessels had been cut and complications
had arisen on account of his age (which was
about 70 years) and was already a heart patient,
the cause of death was:
“Coronary artery disease.—Acute coronary
syndrome, post coronary revascularisation
status, practical post, coronary artery bypass and
post-stent. Post-hand surgery status and diabetes
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 23 of 27
mellitus. Since he was already having heart
disease, bypass surgery had been done to him.
Afterwards heart trouble had occurred to him.”
9. Keeping in mind the said facts the High Court
observed that:
“In view of the above categorical evidence of PW
8 and PW 13, we are of the considered view that
though it had been stated in the post-mortem
report that the death was due to the
complications of myocardial infarction, such
complication is directly attributed to the injuries
inflicted by the accused which resulted in
interruption of the free flow of the blood not only
to the various vital organs but also the heart and
therefore the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the accused is liable to be rejected
and accordingly the same is rejected.”
10.We have considered the reasons given by the
High Court and also considered the evidence
abovereferred. It is the admitted fact that the
doctors have not opined that the death was
caused due to the injuries caused by the
appellant. There is also no evidence to show that
the injuries could have independently caused the
death of the deceased even if the deceased had
not been suffering from a heart problem. It is
also the conceded position that the deceased had
a serious heart problem which was a matter not
within the appellant's knowledge and on the
contrary the medical evidence reveals that he
had undergone an angioplasty but had
nevertheless suffered a heart attack thereafter.
11. In this background the High Court's assertion
that the death was occasioned by complications
on account of the injuries caused by the appellant
is not quite accurate. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the case would fall within Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 24 of 27
326 IPC and not under Section 302 thereof.
12. Mr R. Sundaravardan's argument that this
matter would nevertheless fall within Section 304
Part I or Part II IPC, is also rejected as there was
no intention on the part of the appellant to cause
the death of the deceased nor could he be
attributed with the knowledge that death would be
caused.
13. We accordingly partly allow this appeal, set
aside the acquittal and conviction of the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC,
and alter his conviction to one under Section 326
IPC and award a sentence of 10 years' RI and a
fine of Rs. 5000 and in default thereof, six
months' RI. The sentence under the other
provisions of IPC is maintained. The appeal is
allowed in the above terms.”
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 9 February, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 9 February, 2026
~9
+ CRL.A. 1427/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2091/2025
MOHD. SHADAB .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhijat Bal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nusrat Hossain, Mr. Manish
Kumar Singh, Mr. Shantanu Mishra,
Mr. Satyam Gupta, Mr. Harsh
Vardhan, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Insp. Subhash Chand, PS Darya Ganj
WITH
~10
+ CRL.A. 1497/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2188/2025
MOHD WASEEM @ BHURA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Nusrat Hossain, Mr. Manish
Kumar Singh, Mr. Shantanu Mishra,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Insp. Subhash Chand, PS Darya Ganj
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 27
~11
+ CRL.A. 1499/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2193/2025
SALEEMUDDIN @ SALIM .....Appellant
Through:
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Insp. Subhash Chand, PS Darya Ganj
WITH
~12
+ CRL.A. 1512/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2207/2025
MOHD ATIF MALIK @ LALA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Nusrat Hossain, Mr. Manish
Kumar Singh, Mr. Shantanu Mishra,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
Advs.
Insp. Subhash Chand, PS Darya Ganj
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Madhu Jain, J.(Oral)
BACKGROUND
1. Present appeals have been filed on behalf of the Appellants under
Section 415 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( hereinafter,
‘BNSS’ ) assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 27
th th
sentence dated 6 September, 2025 and 12 September, 2025 respectively,
passed by the ld. ASJ (FTC)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
whereby the Appellants have been convicted in Sessions Case No.
28476/2016 arising out of FIR No. 224/2015 registered at P.S. Darya Ganj
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
( hereinafter ‘IPC’ ).
2. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the
appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a
fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, they have been
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for
the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
BRIEF FACTS:
th
3. Facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 6 April, 2015, DD
No. 2A was received in PS Darya Ganj regarding a quarrel near Turkman
Gate, Delhi. On receiving the said information, PW-11 SI Ved Pal, along
with PW-22 Ct. Girivar, reached at the spot. An agitated crowd was present
there. On inquiry, it was learnt that a motorcycle had touched a car, which
led to a quarrel. During the quarrel, the occupants of the car allegedly
assaulted the motorcycle rider. The injured had already been taken to LNJP
Hospital.
4. Thereafter, I.O. went to LNJP Hospital, where he was informed by Ct.
Ajay that the injured had been declared dead by the doctor. The
Investigating Officer collected the MLC of the deceased and seized the
clothes of the deceased.
5. This led to registration of FIR No. 224/2015 under section 302/34
IPC. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was then conducted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 3 of 27
th
6. Vide order dated 6 July, 2015, a copy of the charge-sheet was
supplied to the accused persons under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated
th
20 July, 2015, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under
Section 209 Cr.P.C.
7. The charges were then framed in the matter before the sessions court
th
vide order on charge dated 4 December, 2015 under Section 302/34 IPC &
Section 302 read with 149 IPC against all the five accused persons to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. During the trial, accused Sheikh Ameenuddin @ Ameenuddin
Pehlwan expired, and the proceedings against him stood abated vide order
th
dated 4 May, 2024.
9. The ld. Trial Court has mainly relied on the testimonies of PW-2, PW-
3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-9, as, according to the prosecution’s case, they are
the eyewitnesses to the incident. While believing the testimonies of these
witnesses, the ld. Trial Court has discussed them as under:
“3. PW-2 Mohd. Fahad, the son of the deceased,
is an alleged eyewitness to the incident. He
deposed that on 05.04.2015, he, his younger
brother PW-3 Mohd. Kaif, and their father Sh.
Shahnawaj (since deceased) were returning to
their house from their grandmother’s residence on
a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-1SR-
5852. At about 11:30 p.m., when they reached near
Turkman Gate, there was a traffic jam. At that
time, a silver-grey i-20 car bearing registration
No. DL-2CAE-8426 came from the side of
Ramleela Ground. While his father was trying to
manoeuvre the motorcycle out of the jam, it slightly
struck the said car.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 4 of 27
He further deposed that accused Shadab was
driving the car, accused Ameen was seated beside
him, and some ladies were sitting on the rear seat.
Upon the motorcycle touching the car, accused
Shadab abused them in filthy language, came out
of the car, and started beating his father. Accused
Ameen also abused them. He further stated that a
red-coloured Activa scooty bearing registration
No. DL-2SAP-8057, carrying three boys, reached
the spot and they also started beating his father.
Accused Ameen Pahalwan allegedly exhorted
others to kill his father, claiming himself to be the
“dada” of the area.
He further deposed that his uncle Wasim reached
the spot, but accused Shadab, Wasim @ Bhura,
Salim, and Atif @ Lala continued beating his
father, while accused Ameen repeatedly exhorted
them to kill him. Thereafter, his younger uncle
Suhail arrived, upon which the three accused who
had come on the scooty fled on foot, leaving the
scooty at the spot, while the remaining accused left
in the car. His uncle Suhail took the injured to
LNJP Hospital in a rickshaw. Later, PW-2 came to
know that his father had expired.
During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that his
father was driving the motorcycle, PW-3 was
seated in the middle, and he was sitting at the rear.
He admitted that the accused persons first abused
his father while sitting in the car and thereafter
assaulted him. He stated that accused Shadab
slapped his father and accused Ameen exhorted the
others to kill him. He admitted that he did not
approach the nearby police post for help and that
shops with CCTV cameras were present near the
spot. He further admitted that he knew the names
of the accused prior to the incident. He denied the
suggestions that the accused were falsely
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 5 of 27
implicated or that he was tutored by family
members, police officials, or any political person.
XXX
PW-3 Mohd. Kaif, the younger son of the deceased,
is also an alleged eyewitness. He deposed that on
15.04.2015 at about 11:20 p.m., he, his brother
Fahad, and their father were returning from their
grandmother’s house on their father’s motorcycle.
Near Haj Manzil, Turkman Gate, there was a
traffic jam, and while his father was taking out the
motorcycle, it slightly struck a silver-grey i-20 car
bearing registration No. DL-2CAE-8426.
Thereafter, accused Shadab abused his father,
came out of the car, and assaulted him. Accused
Ameen Pahalwan also joined in beating his father.
He further deposed that three more persons
arrived on a red-coloured scooty bearing
registration No. DL-9SAP-8057 and they too
assaulted his father. Accused Ameen allegedly
shouted that he was the “dada” of the area and
exhorted others to kill his father. His father fell
unconscious on the road. His uncles Wasim and
Suhail subsequently reached the spot, upon which
all five accused fled—accused Ameen and Shadab
in the car, and the other three on foot. His father
was taken to LNJP Hospital, where he later died.
In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the car
came from the side of Ramleela Maidan and that
two police personnel were present at the nearby
police post. He admitted that around 40–50
persons had gathered at the spot. He stated that he
came to know the names of the accused the next
day through posters and that he did not provide
any physical description of the assailants to the
police. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely
implicated the accused or that he had not
witnessed the incident.
XXX
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 6 of 27
PW-7 Sh. Suhail, the younger brother of the
deceased, is cited as an eyewitness to the incident.
He deposed that on 05.04.2015 at about 11:20–
11:25 p.m., he was accompanying the baraat of his
friend Anas, which was proceeding towards
Turkman Gate. When he reached near Haj Manzil,
he noticed a quarrel taking place. On approaching
the crowd, he saw his elder brother Waseem
attempting to intervene, while his other elder
brother Shahnawaz (since deceased) was being
beaten by Ameen Pahalwan, Waseem @ Bhura,
Atif @ Lala, Shadab, and Saleem, who were
already known to him.
He further deposed that the accused were
mercilessly beating his brother with fist and leg
blows while he was lying unconscious on the road.
He tried to rescue his brother, but the accused
continued the assault. According to him, accused
Ameen Pahalwan was loudly exhorting the others
to kill his brother and claiming himself to be the
“dada” of the area. Thereafter, the accused
persons left the spot along with the car. He
removed his brother to LNJP Hospital in a
rickshaw, where he was declared dead. He also
stated that his nephews Fahad and Kaif were
present at the spot and were crying for help. He
further deposed that at about 4:30 a.m., the police
met him at the spot, made inquiries, and he
disclosed the names of the accused. He proved his
statement regarding identification of the dead body
as Ex. PW-7/A.
In his cross-examination, PW-7 stated that he
witnessed the incident for about 5–7 minutes. He
deposed that he first noticed his brother Waseem at
the spot and that no baraati accompanied him to
the place of occurrence. He admitted that he did
not call the PCR as he was busy taking his brother
to the hospital. He stated that he reached the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 7 of 27
hospital at about 11:45 p.m. and his brother was
examined in his presence. He further stated that
there were no bloodstains at the spot and that the
motorcycle of his brother and a scooty were parked
there. He admitted that a police picket was situated
within about 20 steps from the spot. He also stated
that he did not know when or why the quarrel had
started before his arrival. He denied the
suggestions that he was not present at the spot or
that the accused were falsely implicated, and
further denied that his nephews Fahad and Kaif
were planted witnesses.
XXX
PW-9 Sh. Waseemuddin was the brother of the
deceased as well as one of the eyewitnesses of the
alleged incident. He deposed that on 05.04.2015 at
around 11:10/11:15 p.m., he left his house to go to
the area of Ganj Meer Khan to attend a party. He
further deposed that at about 11:20 p.m., when he
reached near Meer Haj Manzil, Dargah Faiz-e-
Illahi, he saw a crowd. Thereafter, he entered the
crowd and saw that Ameen Pahalwan, his son
Shadab, his nephew Salim, and their associates
Atif @ Lala and Waseem @ Bhura were brutally
beating his brother Shahnawaz. He further
deposed that they were kicking and punching his
brother and that his nephews, Fahad and Kaif,
were crying for help. At that time, Ameen
Pahalwan was saying, “maar do isko jaan se taki
sabko pata chal jaye ki main ilake ka dada hu.” He
further deposed that after seeing the incident, he
made a call to the police at 100 number and
thereafter intervened, and found that his brother
had become unconscious. Despite this, all the
aforesaid persons continued beating his brother
Shahnawaz.
He further deposed that in the meantime, his
younger brother Suhail arrived at the spot, after
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 8 of 27
which two of the accused fled in a grey-coloured i-
20 car, while the remaining offenders also ran
away, though he could not say whether they ran
away in any vehicle or not. He further deposed that
his brother Suhail took Shahnawaz to LNJP
Hospital in a rickshaw and that he also reached
there and came to know that his brother had been
declared dead by the doctor. He further deposed
that the motorcycle of his brother Shahnawaz
bearing registration No. DL-1SR-5852 was seized
by the police in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-9/A, and that one red-coloured Activa scooty
was also seized by the police in his presence vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-9/B. He further deposed that
at around 4:30 a.m. on 06.04.2015, he met the IO,
who made inquiries from him, his nephew Mohd.
Fahad, and his brother Suhail. He further deposed
that thereafter he went to the spot, pointed out the
place of occurrence, and the IO prepared the site
plan Ex. PW-8/DA at his instance. He proved his
statement regarding dead body identification as
Ex. PW-9/C and the dead body handing-over memo
as Ex. PW-9/D. He also deposed about the
apprehension of accused Waseem @ Bhura on his
identification and proved the arrest memo Ex. PW-
9/E.
This witness was cross-examined at length. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that his statement
was recorded by the police on six occasions during
the investigation, the first being on 05.04.2015,
though he did not remember the dates and months
of recording of his statements on other occasions.
He stated that his last statement was recorded on
11.06.2015. He admitted that there was a police
post near the spot of the incident at Turkman Gate.
He further deposed that none of the accused
assaulted or abused him and that neither he nor his
brother Suhail approached the police post. He also
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 9 of 27
deposed that no blood was oozing from the body of
his deceased brother and that his clothes were not
blood-stained. He further deposed that he reached
the hospital along with his brother Suhail and that
his brother Suhail got the deceased admitted. He
denied the suggestion that his family had cordial
relations with the local ex-MLA Sh. Shoaib Iqbal
or that he had tutored them to falsely implicate the
accused persons. He further deposed that his
statement was first recorded at about 6:30 a.m. on
06.04.2015 at PP Turkman Gate. He denied the
suggestion that he did not know the accused
persons prior to the date of the incident and had
named them at the instance of Shoaib Iqbal and the
then SHO Anil Sharma of PS Chandni Mahal. He
also denied the suggestion that none of them,
including himself, Fahad, Kaif, or Suhail, had
witnessed any quarrel involving Shahnawaz on
05.04.2015.”
10. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
persons denied all the charges against them. They claimed that they were
innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
11. The ld. Trial Court vide the impugned judgment convicted the
accused persons and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The relevant
paragraph is re-produced hereinbelow:
“122. Since accused Aminuddin @ Aminuddin
Pahalwan exhorted other accused persons to kill
deceased Shahnawaz and the other accused persons
assaulted the deceased in pursuance of the said
exhortation, as all the accused persons shared common
intention, the prosecution has successfully proved that
the accused persons intended to kill deceased
Shahnawaz who was killed by the accused persons and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 10 of 27
hence the case of the prosecution squarely falls within
the purview of clause firstly of Section 300 IPC.
Secondly, as per the opinion of PW-12 Dr. Amandeep
Kaur, the death in the present case occurred as a result
of the combined effect of brain damage and shock
consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head and
trunk respectively and brain damage, shock and liver
laceration were individually and collectively sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the
case of the prosecution also falls within the purview of
clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. Thus, the
prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of
offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC against
accused persons namely Aminuddin @ Aminuddin
Pahalwan (since deceased), Mohd. Waseem @ Bhura,
Mohd. Shadab, Mohd. Atif Malik @ Lala, Saleemuddin
@ Salim, beyond reasonable doubt .
123. Accordingly, accused persons namely Mohd.
Waseem @ Bhura, Mohd. Shadab, Mohd. Atif Malik
@ Lala, Saleemuddin @ Salim are hereby convicted
for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC.”
12. As can be seen from the above, the ld. Trial Court has held the
Appellants are guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and has convicted them
accordingly. In terms of the impugned order on sentence, the Appellants
were directed to undergo imprisonment for life. The impugned order on
sentence reads as under:
“ 17. This court is of the considered opinion that
family members of deceased Shahnawaz have
suffered mental trauma, inconvenience, hardship,
disappointment and frustration and an adequate
compensation needs to be granted to them. The
convicts do not have the capacity to pay compensation
to the legal heirs ofcircumstances. It has also been
further held that death sentence should not be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 11 of 27
awarded except in rarest of rare cases when the
alternative option is available.
11. Arguments and the rival contentions on behalf of
all the convicts and State have been considered
thoroughly. In the present case the aggravating
circumstances have outweighed the mitigating
circumstances but still the present case does not fall
within the purview of rarest of rare doctrine.
12. In view of facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of the Ld. Defence counsels for the
convicts and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, convicts
namely Mohd. Waseem @ Bhura, Mohd. Shadab,
Mohd. Atif Malik @ Lala & Saleemuddin @ Salim
are hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (each) for the offence
punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for commission
of murder of deceased Shahnawaz. In case of default
to pay fine, the convicts shall undergo simple
imprisonment of two months.
13. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all
the convicts for the period already undergone by them
during the trial.
14. Grant of compensation is an important
component of the order on sentence. As per Section
2(wa) of Cr.P.C., victim means a person who has
suffered any loss or injury caused by the reason
deceased Shahnawaz. Accordingly, in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case and submissions
made, let the present case be sent to Ld. Secretary,
DLSA, Central District, THC, Delhi for
determination and award of adequate compensation
to the legal heirs of deceased Shahnawaz under Sec.
357A Cr.P.C.”
13. The appeals against the impugned judgment were filed on behalf of
th
the Appellants, and on 14 October, 2025, the appeals were admitted. Vide
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 12 of 27
th
order dated 19 December, 2025 the Predecessor Bench had granted interim
st st
suspension of sentence from 01 January, 2026 to 31 January, 2026, in
CRL.A. 1427/2025, on account of advance stage of pregnancy of the wife of
th
the concerned accused. The relevant portion of order dated 19 December,
2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“7.Keeping in mind the overall facts and
circumstances, particularly the advanced stage of
pregnancy of the appellant’s wife and the absence of
immediate family support, and considering the present
application on humanitarian grounds, the appellant is
granted interim suspension of sentence
from 01.01.2026 to 31.01.2026, on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/-, with one surety
of the like amount, one of whom shall be a close
family member of the appellant, to the satisfaction of
the learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate, subject
to the following conditions:-
(i) Appellant shall surrender his passport, if any,
before the learned Trial Court. In case he does not
possess a passport, he shall so state before the learned
Trial Court by way of an affidavit.
(ii) Appellant shall provide his residential address,
contact details and mobile numbers to the learned
Trial Court.
(iii) Appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity
and shall no communicate with or come in contact with
victim or her family, directly or indirectly.
(iv) Appellant shall also, along with bonds, file an
affidavit stating about his clean antecedents and no
involvement in any other criminal case.
8. The appellant shall surrender in jail on 31.01.2026
by 5.00 PM.
9. The present application, accordingly, stands
disposed of.
10. A copy of this Order be immediately sent to the
learned Trial Court and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 13 of 27
Jail Superintendent for information and necessary
compliance.”
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANTS
i. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Shadab, the Appellant in CRL.A.
1427/2025, submits that the evidence on record, particularly the medical
evidence tendered by the doctor from MAMC Hospital, clearly shows that
the deceased was suffering from a serious coronary condition, with about
80% blockage in the arteries. It is submitted that there was no external injury
or fracture on the body of the deceased, nor was any vital part injured. Even
the post-mortem report records that the deceased had gone into shock, which
may have caused the death.
ii. It is further contended that the incident was at best a case of road rage,
which occurred suddenly, in the spur of the moment and in a fit of anger,
and that none of the accused had any intention to kill the deceased. Ld
Senior Counsel also submits that no weapon of offence has been recovered
in the present case.
iii. Attention of this Court is further drawn to the fact that the place of
incident was situated barely 100 metres from a police chowki, and despite
the presence of the brother and other relatives of the deceased at the spot, no
attempt was made either to stop the incident or to immediately take the
deceased to the hospital, which renders the prosecution version doubtful.
iv. It is further submitted that the eyewitnesses examined by the
prosecution are all related to the deceased, and their testimonies do not
inspire confidence. There is no prior animosity between the parties. The
post-mortem report itself shows that the deceased had an enlarged heart,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 14 of 27
weighing about 400 grams, with complete blockage in the coronary arteries,
thereby strengthening the submission that the deceased died due to a heart
attack and not due to the alleged injuries.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RESPONDENT
i. On the hand, Mr. Bahri, ld. APP submits that although the incident
arose out of a case of road rage, the manner in which the injuries were
inflicted upon the deceased clearly shows that the accused subjected him to
a merciless beating, which ultimately resulted in his death.
ii. Ld. Counsel further submits that there are sufficient eyewitnesses on
record to support the conviction and, in any event, the case would, at the
highest, fall within the ambit of Section 304 IPC.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
14. We have heard ld. Counsels for the Appellants and the ld. APP for
the State. The issue for consideration is whether the case of the Appellants
has been rightly covered under Section 302 of the IPC.
15. A perusal of the evidence would reveal that the incident in question
arose out of a sudden road rage altercation. The evidence on record
establishes that the incident arose out of a unpredicted quarrel triggered by a
minor traffic mishap. There is no material to indicate any prior animosity or
pre-planning. The assault, as described by the prosecution witnesses
themselves, was by fist and leg blows. No weapon of offence has been used
or recovered.
16. The statements of PW-7 and PW-9, insofar as they claim to have
reached the spot while independently proceeding to a baraat and a party
respectively, appear improbable and raise doubts as to their natural presence
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 15 of 27
at the scene of occurrence, and therefore, cannot be relied upon without
corroboration.
17. It is apposite to refer to the post-mortem report of the deceased. The
post-mortem report of the deceased mentions that there were internal as well
as external injuries. There were injuries on the head with internal bleeding
under the scalp, which indicate blunt force trauma to the head, as mentioned
in the post-mortem report. Injury Nos. 5 and 6, as mentioned in the post-
mortem report, correspond to the internal injuries. Furthermore, in the
abdominal region, the liver had sustained grievous injury. This is sufficient
to conclude that the injuries suffered by the deceased were grievous in
nature and were, to some extent, life-endangering. The relevant extract
whereof is quoted hereinbelow:
“EXTERNAL EXAMINATION
5. A reddish contusion measuring 2.5 cm × 1.4 cm was
present on the occipital region of the scalp, situated
just to the left of the occipital protuberance.
6. A reddish contusion measuring 1 cm × 0.8 cm was
present on the left parietal eminence.
Xxx
X. INTERNAL EXAMINATION
A) Head:
The scalp showed extravasation of blood in areas
measuring 2.2 cm × 1.4 cm and 1 cm × 0.5 cm,
corresponding to injury Nos. 5 and 6, respectively. The
brain weighed 1316 grams. Subarachnoid
haemorrhage was present over the right parietal
region. The brain was found to be oedematous, with
flattening of gyri and obliteration of sulci.
XXX
D) Abdomen
Liver weight was 1240 grams. Lacerations measuring
2 cm and 1.8 cm in length were present on the anterior
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 16 of 27
surface of the left lobe of the liver, with subcapsular
bleeding over areas measuring 5 cm × 3.5 cm and 6
cm × 4.5 cm respectively, each containing about 5 ml
of blood. On cut section, the surface lacerations were
found to extend into the parenchyma, with disruption of
the parenchyma of the entire left lobe and the adjacent
part of the right lobe, involving about 30% of the liver,
with the presence of bleeding amounting to
approximately 150 ml.”
18. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the findings in the
very same post-mortem report concerning the condition of the heart. The
report clearly records the presence of pre-existing cardiac disease. The heart
was enlarged, and the right coronary artery showed 100% blockage. The
relevant portion has been extracted hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 17 of 27
19. During her testimony, PW-10, Dr. Jyoti Barwa, Assistant Professor,
Department of Forensic Medicine, who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased Shahnawaj, deposed that the
deceased was already suffering from heart disease with significant coronary
blockage, and that a person with such blockage is at a higher risk of
suffering a heart attack. The relevant portion has been extracted
hereinbelow:
“ It is correct that when a patient is brought to the
Emergency, the attending doctor observes most of the
external injuries found on the body of the patient and
the same are reflected in the MLC. It is correct that I
have not mentioned in my post-mortem report Ex.
PW10/A that the external or internal injuries
reflected between points A to A and B to B were either
sufficient to cause death or were likely to cause death.
It is correct that the deceased was having 80%
blockage in the left anterior artery and 100%
blockage in the lumen of the right coronary artery. It
is correct that once a person has this kind of blockage
in the arteries of the heart, he/she is a high-risk case
for a heart attack . Volunteered: even a lesser
percentage of blockage of the arteries can be subject to
a heart attack, and it is also a known fact that patients
with 100% blockage can survive due to the
development of collateral circulation.
It is correct that during the post-mortem conducted in
this case, I did not observe any development of
collateral circulation of blood. Again said, it is not
possible to observe this during post-mortem
examination. Volunteered: I preserved the tissues for
obtaining the histopathological report. The normal
weight of the human heart is between 250 grams to 300
grams, depending upon the build of the person. It is
correct that in this case, I found that the heart of the
deceased was enlarged, weighing about 400 grams. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 18 of 27
is correct that during the post-mortem examination, I
found that the coronaries of the heart were hard and
calcified, gritty throughout their course, with
atherosclerosis showing blockage of the lumen, which
means that there were deposits known as plaques
throughout the arteries of the heart, blocking the
supply of blood to the heart. It is correct that in the
histopathological report it is recorded that the
coronary vessels showed complex atheromatous
plaques with evidence of focal revascularisation,
recanalisation, medial calcification and patency, which
means that the deceased had earlier suffered from a
heart attack and was in the healing process.
Volunteered: this also implies that the patient had not
suffered any acute ischaemic episode. It is correct that
the deceased had also earlier suffered a heart attack.
20. These findings clearly show that the deceased was suffering from
severe and advanced coronary artery disease, which made him highly
vulnerable to cardiac failure or shock, especially during physical exertion or
emotional stress. The death, therefore, cannot be attributed solely to the
assault, as the pre-existing cardiac condition was a substantial contributing
factor. The medical evidence, therefore, weakens the direct causal link
between the blunt force injuries and the death, since it cannot be
conclusively established that the injuries, by themselves, were sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
21. For a conviction under Section 302 IPC, two essential ingredients are
required to be proved, namely mens rea (intention) and actus reus (the act
done). The facts and circumstances of the present case do not satisfy the test
of murder, as the Appellants did not have the intention to cause the death of
the deceased. No weapon was used, nor any recovery effected of any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 19 of 27
weapon. The whole incident shows that it was a spur of the moment
occurrence, as the motorcycle of the deceased touched the car of the accused
persons, and in a fit of anger they started beating the deceased without even
having an iota of intention or any inkling that he had a heart condition or
that this may led to his death. Furthermore, the medical record clearly shows
that the deceased was already suffering from a serious pre-existing heart
condition. In these circumstances, the acts attributed to the Appellants
cannot be said to be sufficient, by itself, to cause the death of the deceased in
the ordinary course of nature or any acts of the appellants done with an
intention to cause death. Consequently, the essential ingredients of Section
302 IPC are not made out. The aforesaid legal position has been
unequivocally reiterated by the Supreme Court in Maniklal Sahu v. State of
Chhattisgarh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1960 . The relevant portion has been
reproduced hereinbelow:
“26. To come within the definition of
Section 299 IPC, the act of the accused should cause
death and it must be (a) with the intention of causing
death, or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily
injuries as is likely to cause death, or (c) with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
The question when a person could be said to have
caused death by his act needs to be answered taking
into consideration the Explanations
1 and 2 respectively to Section 299 of the IPC.
27. The simpler case is where death results directly
and immediately from the act itself. Equally, when
death ensues as a natural or necessary consequence
flowing from that act, there can be no hesitation in
holding that the act caused the death. For “Thirdly” of
Section 300 to apply the requirement is, that the injury
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 20 of 27
inflicted should be found sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, a high degree of
probability, in the ordinary way of nature, that death
would ensue on the injuries. The difficulty arises when
there are recognisable contributory causes leading to
death, and the Court is called upon to consider in such
case the relative effect and strength of the different
causes in bringing about the effect i.e., the death, and
then to ascertain whether the responsibility of the
death could be assigned to a particular act which is not
as proximate, or immediate.”
22. The case of the Appellants would also not fall within the ambit of
Section 304 IPC. As reiterated by the Supreme Court on several occasions,
the applicability of Section 304 depends upon the presence of intention or
knowledge in relation to causing death. Keeping the settled principles in
mind, the present case does not attract liability under Section 304 IPC,
having regard to the nature of the injuries, the absence of any weapon, and
the pre-existing medical condition of the deceased. This Court may refers to
the decision of the Supreme Court in Nandkumar v. State of Gujarat , 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2374 , wherein it has been reiterated that for an offence to
fall within Section 304, there must be either an intention to cause such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or at least knowledge that the act
was likely to cause death. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereinbelow:
“5.7. In other words, where the two ingredients
namely that the infliction of bodily injury on
deceased was caused intentionally and secondly
that it was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature, are satisfied, the
offence would amount to murder. There may be
circumstances which may emerge from the facts
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 21 of 27
and evidence of a given case that the offence
becomes ‘culpable homicide not amounting to
murder’.
2
5.8. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab and further
in Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of
3
Maharashtra , this Court stated that divided into
two Parts, Section 304, IPC deals with the
situations where ‘culpable homicide’ would not
be a murder. The conceptualisation of the
‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’
were explained in the following way, as quoted in
1
para 4 of the Kesar Singh ,
“If an injury is inflicted with the knowledge and
intention that it is likely to cause death, but with
no intention to cause death the offence would
fall within the definition of Section 304 Part I,
however, if there is no intention to cause such an
injury, but there is knowledge that such an
injury can cause death, the offence would fall
within the definition of Section 304 Part II.
Thus, is intention. If intention to cause such an
injury as is likely to cause death, is established,
the offence would fall under Part I but where no
such intention is established and only knowledge
that the injury is likely to cause death, it would
fall under Part II.”
23. As observed by the Supreme Court in Sompal Singh v. State of
U.P. , (2014) 7 SCC 316, there exists a very thin and subtle line of
demarcation between ‘hurt which endangers life’ and an ‘injury which is
likely to cause death’. Consequently, in cases where death ensues, it often
becomes difficult to determine whether the accused is liable under Section
325 IPC for causing grievous hurt or under Section 304 IPC for culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
24. In the present case, however, keeping in view the fact that no lethal
weapon was used, the Appellants had no knowledge of the deceased’s pre-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 22 of 27
existing medical condition, and there was no intention to cause death, the
essential ingredients required to attract liability under Section 304 IPC are
not made out. The case, therefore, stands clearly outside the ambit of Section
304 IPC.
25. The case of the Appellants would in fact be covered by the decision of
the Supreme Court in Mayandi v. State , (2010) 11 SCC 774 . In the said
case, the deceased was attacked with a sickle and sustained several injuries,
and subsequently died. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the
Appellants under Section 302 IPC and altered the conviction to one under
Section 326 IPC, holding that the deceased was suffering from a serious
heart ailment which was not within the knowledge of the Appellants, and
that the medical evidence revealed that the deceased had earlier undergone
angioplasty and had suffered a heart attack.
“7. PW 13 also noted that the deceased had died
due to complications arising out of myocardial
infarction and admitted that in the post-mortem
report there was no suggestion that the death
was a result of the injuries.
The learned counsel has also brought to our
notice the death summary (Ext. P-8) which had
been recorded in Apollo Hospital by the
attending doctor (PW 8) who stated that as the
deceased had lost a great deal of blood as the
blood vessels had been cut and complications
had arisen on account of his age (which was
about 70 years) and was already a heart patient,
the cause of death was:
“Coronary artery disease.—Acute coronary
syndrome, post coronary revascularisation
status, practical post, coronary artery bypass and
post-stent. Post-hand surgery status and diabetes
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 23 of 27
mellitus. Since he was already having heart
disease, bypass surgery had been done to him.
Afterwards heart trouble had occurred to him.”
9. Keeping in mind the said facts the High Court
observed that:
“In view of the above categorical evidence of PW
8 and PW 13, we are of the considered view that
though it had been stated in the post-mortem
report that the death was due to the
complications of myocardial infarction, such
complication is directly attributed to the injuries
inflicted by the accused which resulted in
interruption of the free flow of the blood not only
to the various vital organs but also the heart and
therefore the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the accused is liable to be rejected
and accordingly the same is rejected.”
10.We have considered the reasons given by the
High Court and also considered the evidence
abovereferred. It is the admitted fact that the
doctors have not opined that the death was
caused due to the injuries caused by the
appellant. There is also no evidence to show that
the injuries could have independently caused the
death of the deceased even if the deceased had
not been suffering from a heart problem. It is
also the conceded position that the deceased had
a serious heart problem which was a matter not
within the appellant's knowledge and on the
contrary the medical evidence reveals that he
had undergone an angioplasty but had
nevertheless suffered a heart attack thereafter.
11. In this background the High Court's assertion
that the death was occasioned by complications
on account of the injuries caused by the appellant
is not quite accurate. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the case would fall within Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 24 of 27
326 IPC and not under Section 302 thereof.
12. Mr R. Sundaravardan's argument that this
matter would nevertheless fall within Section 304
Part I or Part II IPC, is also rejected as there was
no intention on the part of the appellant to cause
the death of the deceased nor could he be
attributed with the knowledge that death would be
caused.
13. We accordingly partly allow this appeal, set
aside the acquittal and conviction of the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC,
and alter his conviction to one under Section 326
IPC and award a sentence of 10 years' RI and a
fine of Rs. 5000 and in default thereof, six
months' RI. The sentence under the other
provisions of IPC is maintained. The appeal is
allowed in the above terms.”
| 26. At this stage, the Court deems it appropriate to refer to Section 320 | ||
|---|---|---|
| IPC, which is reproduced hereinbelow: | ||
| “S.320- The following kinds of hurt only are | ||
| designated as “grievous”: | ||
| 1. Emasculation. | ||
| 2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. | ||
| 3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either | ||
| ear. | ||
| 4. Privation of any member or joint. | ||
| 5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the | ||
| powers of any member or joint. | ||
| 6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. | ||
| 7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. | ||
| 8. Any hurt which endangers life or which | ||
| causes the sufferer to be during the space of | ||
| twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to | ||
| follow his ordinary pursuits.” | ||
27. Applying Section 320(8) IPC to the facts of the present case, this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 25 of 27
Court finds that the injuries suffered by the deceased clearly fall within the
category of ‘hurt which endangers life.’ The post-mortem report records
subarachnoid haemorrhage consequent to blunt force trauma to the head,
along with extensive laceration of the liver involving approximately 30% of
the organ and internal bleeding of about 150 ml. The liver and brain are vital
organs, and injuries to such organs, accompanied by internal haemorrhage
and shock, are inherently life-endangering in nature. Even though no
fracture was detected, the presence of internal bleeding, cerebral
haemorrhage, and disruption of hepatic parenchyma establishes that the hurt
caused was not superficial or simple, but one which endangered life within
the meaning of Section 320(8) IPC. The medical evidence, therefore,
supports the conclusion that the injuries suffered by the deceased constituted
grievous hurt in law under Section 320(8) IPC, irrespective of the existence
of any pre-existing cardiac condition.
| 28. From a perusal of the Nominal Roll, it emerges that the Appellants | From a perusal of the Nominal Roll, it emerges that the Appellants | ||||||
| have already undergone nearly three years of incarceration. The same as per | |||||||
| the latest nominal roll are as under: | |||||||
| S. No. | Appeal no. | Name of Appellant | Date of<br>Nominal Roll | Period<br>served. | |||
| 1. | CRL.A.<br>1427/2025 | Mohd. Shadab | 1stJanuary,<br>2026 | 3 years, 8<br>months, 15<br>days. | |||
| 2. | CRL.A.<br>1497/2025 | Mohd.<br>Waseem@Bhura | 2ndJanuary,<br>2026 | 3 years, 9<br>months, 26<br>days. | |||
| 3. | CRL.A.<br>1499/2025 | Saleemuddin@Salim | 1stJanuary,<br>2026 | 3 years, 8<br>months, 18<br>days. | |||
| 4. | CRL.A.<br>1512/2025 | Mohd. Atif<br>Malik@Lala | 29th<br>December,<br>2025 | 3 years, 10<br>months, 2<br>days. |
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 26 of 27
29. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence of voluntarily
causing grievous hurt under Section 325 of the IPC extends up to seven
years.
CONCLUSION
30. Accordingly, the conviction of the Appellants under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC stands set aside and is converted into one under 325
IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
31. The Appellants are sentenced to undergo the period of imprisonment
already undergone by them. They shall be released forthwith, if not required
in any other case.
32. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the Appellants shall
stand discharged. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
33. Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, for information
and compliance.
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 9, 2026/ ys/rm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:09.02.2026
19:30:46
CRL.A. 1427/2025 & connected matters Page 27 of 27