Mr. Rana Pratap vs State Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 15.10.2026
Date of Decision: 30.10.2026
Uploaded on: 30.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010663782025
+ CRL.A. 1262/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1879/2025
MR. RANA PRATAP .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Kamlesh Kumar, Ms. Tripta, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for the
State.
SI, Rajesh Kumar, PS Vijay Vihar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
“BNSS”), assailing the judgment dated 26.05.2025 and the order on
sentence dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned ASJ, North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi, in FIR No. 439/2010 , registered at P.S. Vijay Vihar
under Sections 186, 353, 332, 333, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) whereby the appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 1 of 18

was convicted and sentenced for the offences for which he was charged.
The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the impugned order, are as
follows:
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.12.2010, DD No. 76-
B was received telephonically at PS Vijay Vihar. Upon receipt thereof, SI
Ramesh Thakur (PW-12), along with Ct. Surinder, Ct. Hari Narayan (PW-4),
Ct. Pramod, Ct. Satbir (PW-6), Ct. Ravinder (PW-5), and ASI K.N. Goud
(PW-10), reached the spot, where Ct. Karambir (PW-2), Ct. Ravinder (PW-
5), and Ct. Joginder (PW-9) were found in an injured condition. On the
identification of Ct. Karambir, accused Anand, Amit, Surender Singh S/o
Narayan Singh, and Rana Pratap Singh were apprehended. It was also
revealed that the aforesaid accused had sustained injuries due to beatings
inflicted by members of the public. The three constables were medically
examined at BSA Hospital vide MLCs Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-3/B, and Ex.
PW-3/C, respectively. Thereafter, the complaint of Ct. Karambir (Ex. PW-
2/A) was recorded to the effect that on 29.12.2010, he, along with the two
constables were on patrolling duty in Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi; at around 10:15
PM, they reached Pocket B-9, near Chaurasia Paan Bhandar, where a secret
informer met him and informed him that illicit liquor was being sold at House
No. 109 and that an immediate raid could lead to its seizure.
3. Upon receiving the aforesaid information, Ct. Karambir, along with the
other two constables, reached Chaurasia Paan Bhandar and began verifying
the information while keeping watch over the said house. A person emerged
from the house, and upon his random search, a plastic quarter bottle of liquor
bearing the label ‘Sikandar Santara’ was found. At that point, accused Anand
@ Saansi, whom Ct. Karambir already knew, emerged from the house and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 2 of 18

questioned him as to why he was troubling his customer. Ct. Karambir
thereupon showed his identity card and those of the accompanying police
officials. Upon learning their identity, accused Anand called his associates,
namely, co-accused Surender, Amit, Rana Pratap, and Santosh, addressing
them by their names. All the accused challenged the police party for stopping
their customer and began assaulting the police officials, with accused Anand
punching Ct. Karambir on the nose. Ct. Karambir further stated that when Ct.
Ravinder and Ct. Joginder attempted to intervene, one of the accused caught
Ct. Joginder. At the instance of accused Anand @ Saansi, accused Surender
inflicted injuries on Ct. Joginder’s head and other parts of his body with a
baseball bat. Two of the accused caught hold of Ct. Ravinder, while accused
Rana Pratap and Amit, at the instigation of accused Surender (who was the
brother-in-law of accused Anand and whom he knew already as he supplied
illicit liquor at Sector-5, Rohini), picked up bricks lying on the ground and
inflicted injuries to Ct. Ravinder on the head. As per the complaint further, at
this point, other associates of Anand @ Saansi reached the spot and they also
gave beatings to the police officials. Out of them, accused Anand @ Saansi
was referring to one accused as Santosh; the accused also got the customer
released whom the police officials had apprehended with a quarter of illicit
liquor Seeing the above quarrel, public gathered at the spot and supported the
police officials. The public also challenged the accused persons; gave beatings
to them and rescued the above police officials. At this point, all the accused
went to the house of accused Anand @Saansi.
4. On 30.10.2010, an FIR was registered vide FIR No. 439/2010 at
P.S. Vijay Vihar under Sections 186, 353, 332, 308 read with Section 34 of
the IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 3 of 18

5. On 15.07.2013, a formal charge for the commission of offences u/s
186, 353, 332, 333, 308, and 34 IPC against accused persons namely
Anand, Amit, Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Rana Pratap Singh and
Surender Singh S/o Chaman Lal, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Vide order dated 01.06.2019, charge for the above offences
was also framed against accused Santosh Kumar Chaurasia, to which he
also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case against the accused and discharge its burden, the
prosecution examined thirteen witnesses before the learned Trial Court,
whose testimonies have been discussed in the impugned judgment as under:
“10. PW-2 Ct. Karambir deposed on the same lines
as his complaint Ex. PW-2/A referred to above and
also identified all the accused correctly in the court.
PW-5 HC Ravinder and PW-9 Ct. Joginder also
corroborated his testimony and also correctly
identified all the accused persons in the court. It
also emerged during their testimonies that Alto car
in which co accused reached the spot on the asking
of accused Anand @ Saasi was seized by the IO vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-2/H; ten brick stones used by
the accused Amit and Rana Pratap in assaulting Ct.
Ravinder were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-2/I. the baseball bat was recovered from the
house of accused Anand at the instance of accused
Surender S/o Narayan Singh vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-2/J. Blood stained clothes of Ct. Ravinder i.e
orange and white colour shirt were also seized. The
same were produced during the testimony of PW-2
Ct. Karambir and were identified by him correctly
as Ex. P-1. Inner wear and handkerchief belonging
to PW-5 HC Ravinder were similarly seized by the
IO and were correctly identified by PW-2 as Ex.
PW2 (colly). PW-5 HC Ravinder and PW-9 Ct.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 4 of 18

Joginder also deposed on the same lines.
11. PW-2 further deposed thaat four accused
persons also namely Anand, Surender S/o Narayan
Singh, Amit and Rana Pratap were arrested from
the spot on the same day. Two brick stones
recovered from the spot were also correctly
identified by him as Ex. P3 (colly) and the baseball
bast was correctly identified as Ex. P-4.
12. The testimonies of the above injured constables
are clear, cogent, truthful and inspire confidence of
the court. They corroborate each other and are also
corroborated by other PWs. All the above witnesses
were subjected to cross examination on behalf of the
defence but nothing material emerged therefrom to
be of any help to the defence.
13. PW-3 Ms. Deepti Bhall, CMO BSA Hospital ,
who examined Ct. Karambir, Ct. Joginder and Ct.
Ravinder Kumar on 29.12.2010, proved their MLC
as Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-3/B and Ex. PW-3/C
respectively as per which the nature of injury
suffered by Ct. Karambir was opined as grievous
and he also suffered fracture of the nasal bone.
Nature of injuries suffered by Ct. Joginder and Ct.
Ravinder were opined to be simple. She further
deposed that on 30.12.2010, she also examined
accused Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh (vide
MLC No. Ex. PW-3/D), accused Rana Pratap Singh
(vide MLC Ex. PW-3/E), accused Amit (vide MLC
Ex. 3/F) and accused Anand (vide MLC Ex. PW-
3/G).
14. PW-7 Dr. Deepika Sethi , ENT Specialist, Dr.
BSA Hospital deposed on behalf of the Dr. Sushil,
Sr. Resident of the said hospital who had left its
services and proved expert opinion on the MLCs of
Ct. Karambir and Ct. Joginder.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 5 of 18

15 . PW-12 Retired Inspector Ramesh Thakur , who
was IO of the case deposed about the investigation
carried out by him and also proved arrest memo of
accused Surender S/o Chaman Lal as Ex. PW-12/8.
He also identified all the accused persons in the
court.
16. PW-13 A.K. Lall , who was ACP Rohini Sub
Division on the date of the incident, proved
complaint Ex. PW-13/A made by him u/s 195 Cr. PC
in respect of the offence u/s 186/353/34 IPC.”
7. On the completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused
persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded thereafter, during which accused
Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh submitted that on 29.12.2010, Ct.
Ravinder and Ct. Joginder entered the house of co-accused Anand under the
influence of liquor in his absence; they misbehaved with his daughter, namely
Archana. When she raised an alarm, the neighbours and general public
gathered there and, hearing her noise, the public persons and neighbours beat
the above said police officials. In order to avoid the consequences of offences
committed by them, they implicated him and other co-accused in the present
case in order to put undue pressure upon him. Accused Rana Pratap, Amit and
Anand also took similar pleas. Accused Santosh and Surender Singh S/o
Chaman Lal pleaded innocence. Accused Anand examined himself as DW-1.
th
8. The learned Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 26 May
2025, convicted the appellant and held as under:
31. In view of the above discussion, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution
has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubts against accused Anand, Amit, Surender
Singh S/o Narayan Singh and Rana Pratap Singh.
Accordingly, they are convicted for the offence u/s
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 6 of 18

186/353/332/333/308/34 IPC. As against accused
Surender Singh S/o Chaman Lal and Santosh
Kumar Chaurasia, however, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the said accused are acquitted of the
charged offences.
9. Consequent upon the judgment of conviction, the learned Trial Court,
th
vide Order on Sentence dated 14 July 2025, imposed the following sentence
upon the present appellant:
“Accused Rana Pratap S/o Narayan Singh
(i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
months for the offence punishable u/s 186 IPC and
also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred
only); in default of which the convicts shall undergo
further simple imprisonment for ten days;
(ii) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
and four months for the offence punishable u/s 353
IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Hundred only); in default of which the convicts
shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one
month;
(iii) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years
for the offence punishable u/s 333 IPC and also to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Hundred
only); in default of which the convicts shall undergo
further simple imprisonment for one month;
(iv) As the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 332
IPC are included in the offence punishable u/s 333
IPC being graver offence, the convicts are not being
separately sentenced for the said offence in terms of
Sec. 71 IPC.
(v) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four
years and six months for the offence punishable u/s
308 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Hundred only); in default of which the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 7 of 18

convicts shall undergo further simple imprisonment
for one month;
(vi) All the above sentences are for the above
offences r/w Sec. 34 IPC;
(vii) All the above sentences to run concurrently;
(viii) Benefit of period already undergone in custody
is given to the convict in terms of Section 428
Cr.PC.”
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order on
sentence, the appellant has challenged both before this Court.
Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial
Court had failed to appreciate the material contradictions and procedural
irregularities in the prosecution’s case. It was contended that the impugned
judgment suffered from material errors in the appreciation of evidence and
that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the cognizance of the offence
under Section 186 IPC was barred in the absence of a written complaint by
the concerned public servant, as required under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC.
It was contended that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet could substitute
the complaint mandated by law. Reliance was placed on Daulat Ram v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206 , and C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 .
13. It was further submitted that the MLCs of Constables Karambir,
Joginder and Ravinder attributed their injuries to the public, whereas their
in-court testimony implicated the appellant and others. In particular, PW-2,
Constable Karambir, allegedly attributed his injury to the appellant but his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 8 of 18

MLC recorded that the injury had been caused by the public. Similar
contradictions were stated to exist in the MLCs of Constables Joginder and
Ravinder. It was contended that these inconsistencies cast serious doubt on
the prosecution’s version and indicated the possibility of false implication.
Learned counsel further submitted that two of the six accused had been
acquitted on the same evidence, thereby highlighting the inconsistencies in
the prosecution’s case and the absence of corroboration from independent
witnesses.
14. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged customer from whom
illicit liquor was purportedly purchased had not been examined and no
liquor had been seized. It was contended that PW-5 had denied witnessing
any purchase of liquor and had stated that the police officials had left the
police station without making a daily diary entry, in civilian clothes and
without proper authority for arrest. These circumstances, according to
learned counsel, raised serious questions regarding the legality and
credibility of the investigation.
15. It was further submitted that PW-5 was not posted on the relevant
beat and that no secret information had been conveyed to the Station House
Officer. Learned counsel contended that the prosecution had failed to
establish the circumstances in which the police officials had proceeded to
the relevant location.
16. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged recovery of the
weapon, namely a baseball bat, exhibited as Ex. P-4, had not been
satisfactorily established. It was contended that when the parcel was opened
before the Court, the seal was already broken, thereby raising doubts
regarding the integrity of the alleged recovery and the preservation of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 9 of 18

case property.
17. Reliance was also placed on the orders passed by this Court granting
bail to the co-convict Anand, namely the order dated 11.08.2025 in Crl. A.
No. 1064/2025 and the order dated 28.08.2025 in Crl. Appeal No.
1213/2025. Learned counsel submitted that the contradictions and
deficiencies in the prosecution’s case were similar to those considered by
this Court while granting bail to the co-convict.
18. It was further contended that the prosecution had failed to examine
any independent witness despite the admitted presence of a public gathering
at the relevant time. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court
had relied upon the testimony of police witnesses without adequately
considering the absence of independent corroboration. Reliance was placed
on Khem Karan v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 603 , in support of the
submission that the evidence of interested witnesses required careful
scrutiny.
19. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Trial Court had
failed to consider material procedural lapses, including the non-
examination of the alleged customer from whom illicit liquor was
purportedly purchased, the absence of seizure of liquor and the non-
examination of key police officials. It was contended that these omissions
materially weakened the prosecution’s case.
20. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court had failed to
consider the defence version that the police officials had entered the house
of the co-convict while intoxicated and had misbehaved with his daughter,
which allegedly triggered public outrage. Learned counsel contended that
the defence version had not been adequately discussed or considered in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 10 of 18

impugned judgment.
21. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution had failed to
establish that the police officials were obstructed in the discharge of their
official duties. It was pointed out that the relevant daily diary entry had not
been produced to establish that the police officials were on patrol at the
relevant time. It was also questioned why the officials were not wearing
their police uniforms if they were performing patrol duty. According to
learned counsel, these circumstances remained unexplained during the trial
and cast doubt on the prosecution’s version.
22. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court had
failed to consider the mitigating circumstances relevant to the appellant,
including the absence of any prior conviction, his status as the sole
breadwinner of his family, the prolonged pendency of the trial for
approximately fifteen years and his compliance with the conditions of bail
throughout the trial. It was contended that these circumstances warranted
due consideration while determining the appropriate sentence.
23. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prayed
that the impugned judgment and order on sentence be set aside and that the
present appellant be granted appropriate relief.
Submissions On Behalf Of The Respondent-State
24. Learned APP for the State opposed the appeal and submitted that the
prosecution had successfully established the case against the appellant
through the testimonies of the injured police officials, the medical evidence
and the circumstances surrounding the incident. It was submitted that the
learned Trial Court had duly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 11 of 18

convicted the appellant for the offences in question.
25. Learned APP submitted that on 29.12.2010, HC Subhash received
DD No. 76B telephonically and proceeded to the spot along with other
police personnel. Upon reaching the spot, Constables Karambir, Ravinder
and Joginder were found in an injured condition, and an Alto car bearing
registration No. DL4CAA-4972, with a damaged front windshield, was also
found there. It was submitted that, upon the identification of Constable
Karambir, the accused persons, including the appellant, were apprehended
at the spot and had sustained injuries during the intervention by members
of the public.
26. Learned APP submitted that the appellant and his associates had
actively participated in the assault on the police personnel. It was alleged
that accused Surender Singh struck Constable Joginder with a baseball bat,
while accused Rana Pratap and Amit assaulted Constable Ravinder with
bricks. The apprehended suspect was forcibly freed during the incident, and
members of the public intervened and rescued the police officials. It was
submitted that these circumstances established the nature of the occurrence
and the appellant’s involvement therein.
27. Learned APP further submitted that the medical evidence
corroborated the prosecution’s case regarding the injuries sustained by the
police personnel. The injured constables were medically examined at BSA
Hospital, and their respective MLCs were collected during the
investigation. It was submitted that, during further investigation, medical
opinions were obtained in respect of the injuries sustained by Constable
Karambir and Constable Joginder, pursuant to which the injuries of
Constable Karambir were opined to be grievous and those of Constable
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 12 of 18

Joginder to be simple. Accordingly, Section 308 IPC was added during the
investigation.
28. Learned APP further submitted that the investigation had resulted in
the recovery of the baseball bat at the instance of accused Surender Singh
and two pieces of bricks at the instance of accused Rana Pratap and Amit,
which were allegedly used in the assault on the police personnel. The
exhibits were seized and deposited in the malkhana. It was contended that
the statements of the injured police personnel, the medical evidence and the
recoveries made during the investigation, when considered cumulatively,
supported the prosecution’s case.
29. It was further submitted that the appellant had been involved in
several other criminal cases, including cases involving serious offences.
30. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned APP for the State
contended that the prosecution had established the appellant’s involvement
in the offences beyond reasonable doubt and that the impugned judgment
did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, learned APP prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
Findings and Analysis
31. This Court has heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the material on record.
32. The testimonies of PW-2 Ct. Karambir, PW-5 HC Ravinder and PW-
9 Ct. Joginder consistently establish that the appellant participated in the
assault upon the police officials while they were discharging their official
duties. PW-5 specifically deposed that the appellant and co-accused Amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 13 of 18

struck him on the head with brick stones, while PW-2 and PW-9
corroborated this account. Their testimony is supported by the medical
evidence and identification of the seized brick stones. The discrepancies
concerning the colour of Ravinder’s shirt, the broken seal of the baseball
bat and the non-examination of independent witnesses do not materially
undermine the consistent evidence regarding the appellant’s participation.
Relevant portion of statements reproduced below-
“PW-2: Ct. Karambir
“Other accused persons namely Rana Pratap and
Amit caught hold of Ct. Ravinder and on the asking
of accused Surender, accused Amit and Rana
Pratap hit Ct. Ravinder on his head and other part
of body with brick stones.”
PW-5: HC Ravinder
“Meanwhile accused Surender son of late
Sh.Chaman Lal also came there and exhorted other
accused persons Amit and Rana Pratap and told
them to pick the bricks and stones from the road and
beat us with the same. Accused Amit and Rana
Pratap picked the brick lying on the road and bang
the same on my head, due to which blood started
oozing out from my head.”
PW-9: Ct. Joginder
“Two of the accused caught hold Ct. Ravinder and
on the asking of accused Surender, who is brother
in law (sadu) of accused Anand Sansi, accused Rana
Pratap and Amit lifted the bricks lying on the road
and hit the same on the head of Ct. Ravinder.”
33. It is significant to peruse the MLCs of the injured police officials to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 14 of 18

ascertain the nature of the injuries sustained by them. PW-3, Dr. Deepti
Bhalla, proved the MLCs Ex. PW-3/A to Ex. PW-3/C. The MLC of Ct.
Karambir (Ex. PW-3/A) records a fracture of the nasal bone, opined to be
grievous in nature, whereas the injuries sustained by Ct. Joginder and HC
Ravinder, as recorded in Ex. PW-3/B and Ex. PW-3/C, respectively, were
opined to be simple. The medical evidence, therefore, establishes that the
injuries sustained by the police officials were not uniform in nature and
must be appreciated in light of the specific overt acts attributed to each
accused in the ocular testimony.
34. As regards Section 186 IPC, the objection under Section 195 CrPC
is rejected in view of the written complaint, Ex. PW-13/A, proved by PW-
13, A.K. Lall, the then ACP, Rohini Sub-Division. The testimonies of PW-
2, PW-5 and PW-9 establish that the appellant participated in obstructing
the police officials while they were discharging their official duties.
Accordingly, the conviction under Section 186 read with Section 34 IPC
warrants no interference.
35. The convictions under Sections 332 and 353 read with Section 34
IPC are supported by the consistent testimonies of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-9,
who attributed to the appellant and co-accused Amit the assault upon HC
Ravinder with brick stones. The MLC of HC Ravinder, Ex. PW-3/C,
records simple injuries. The evidence establishes that the appellant caused
hurt to, and used force against, a police official in the course of the
discharge of official duties. The convictions under Sections 332 and 353
read with Section 34 IPC are accordingly upheld.
36. As regards Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC, the MLC of Ct.
Karambir, Ex. PW-3/A, records a fracture of the nasal bone, opined to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 15 of 18

grievous in nature. Although this injury was attributed to co-accused
Anand, the appellant’s liability depends upon whether the evidence
establishes that the grievous hurt was caused in furtherance of the common
intention shared by him. The coordinated assault upon the police officials
is relevant to this determination. The judgements relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant in this regard are distinguishable and do not
support his case.
37. For the foregoing reasons, the convictions under Sections 186, 332,
333 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.
38. The conviction under Section 308 IPC, however, requires separate
consideration. It is desirable to quote the provisions of Section 308 IPC,
which are as under:
“ Section 308. Attempt to commit culpable
homicide:— Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death,
he would be guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both,
and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, or with
fine, or with both.”
39. The conviction of the appellant under Section 308 IPC cannot be
sustained. PW-2, Ct. Karambir, PW-5, HC Ravinder, and PW-9, Ct.
Joginder, have consistently deposed that the appellant and co-accused Amit
struck Ravinder on the head and other parts of the body with brick stones.
The Court does not overlook that an assault with a brick directed at the head
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 16 of 18

involves a potentially dangerous act. Nevertheless, the applicability of
Section 308 IPC depends not merely upon the weapon used or the part of
the body targeted, but upon proof that the act was committed with the
intention or knowledge that, if death had ensued, the appellant would have
been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
40. In the present case, the incident arose suddenly when the police
officials intervened in connection with the alleged recovery of illicit liquor;
no prior enmity or premeditation is shown in the evidence reproduced
before this Court. Although Ravinder testified that blood started oozing
from his head, his injuries were medically opined to be simple. The
depositions do not specify repeated blows with the bricks or disclose other
circumstances sufficiently demonstrating the requisite intention or
knowledge. On an assessment of the nature of the assault and the evidence
as a whole, the requisite mens rea has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. The conviction of the appellant under Section 308 IPC is accordingly
set aside.
Conclusion
41. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The
conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 186,
332, 333 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC is upheld. The conviction under
Section 308 IPC is set aside.
42. Consequently, the order on sentence dated 14.07.2025 is set aside to
the extent of the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section
308 IPC, namely, rigorous imprisonment for four years and six months,
along with a fine of ₹10,000/-, and simple imprisonment for one month in
default of payment of fine. The remaining sentences imposed by the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 17 of 18

Trial Court are maintained. The direction that the substantive sentences
shall run concurrently shall operate in respect of the sentences that have
been upheld.
43. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 CrPC in
accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The
pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
44. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court and the
learned Superintendent of the concerned Jail for information and necessary
compliance.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 30, 2026/rm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:00:46
CRL.A. 1262/2025 Page 18 of 18