Sanaay Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 02.11.2026
Date of Decision: 06.11.2026
Uploaded on: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010290732025
+ CRL.A. 647/2025
SANJAY KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arjun Malik, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP
SI Mohit Bamel, P.S. Begumpur
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Sanjay
Kumar, under Section 415(2) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS”),
challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2025 and order on
sentence dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-03, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.
655/2018, arising out of FIR No. 220/2013 registered at Police Station
Begum Pur.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court convicted the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 1 of 28
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). By the subsequent
order on sentence dated 01.03.2025, the appellant was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and
in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of four months. The appellant was also granted the benefit of
Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Cr.P.C.”).
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 02.07.2013, Arun
Kumar (PW-1) admitted his brother, Varun Kumar Verma (hereinafter
referred to as the “deceased”), to Hari Darshan De-addiction Centre,
situated at Begum Vihar, Delhi, for treatment of his addiction. As per the
testimony of PW-1, the appellant, Sanjay Kumar, was managing the said
de-addiction centre, while co-accused Rajesh Kumar was working there as
a caretaker. The monthly charges for the treatment were fixed at Rs.4,500/-
out of which PW-1 paid Rs.1,000/- at the time of admission, with the
balance amount of Rs.3,500/- to be paid subsequently.
4. It is alleged that on 07.07.2013, when PW-1 visited the de-addiction
centre to meet his brother, the deceased started crying and informed him
that he did not wish to remain admitted there, as he was being beaten by the
staff. Upon hearing this, PW-1 expressed his intention to take the deceased
home. However, the appellant and co-accused Rajesh Kumar allegedly
refused to permit him to take his brother away without first paying the
outstanding amount of Rs.3,500/-.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 2 of 28
5. As per the prosecution, an altercation thereafter took place, during
which co-accused Rajesh Kumar caught hold of PW-1, while the appellant
pulled the deceased inside the de-addiction centre. It is alleged that the
appellant dragged the deceased into an adjoining room and repeatedly
assaulted him with fist and kick blows, particularly on his abdomen.
Thereafter, PW-1 took his brother home and subsequently brought him to
Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “BSA
Hospital”), Rohini, for medical treatment.
6. The medical record reveals that the deceased initially visited the
casualty department of BSA Hospital on 07.07.2013, at approximately
10:00 PM, with a complaint of abdominal pain. At the time of this initial
visit, no history of physical assault was recorded. The deceased again
presented at the hospital at approximately 1:30 AM on 08.07.2013, when a
history of physical assault on the previous evening was recorded. He was
thereafter medically examined by Dr. Sandeep Kumar, Junior Resident,
under the supervision of Dr. Brijesh Patel, CMO, vide MLC No. 7350/2013,
exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A.
7. The MLC records multiple abrasions and bruises on the body of the
deceased. Following the examination, the deceased was referred to the
Senior Residents of the Surgery and Medicine Departments for further
management. Upon examination by the Surgery Department, he was
advised admission to the Emergency Surgery Ward. The relevant portion
of the MLC bearing No. 7350/2013 is reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 3 of 28
Details of History, Clinical Examination, Opinion and
Advice:
o Alleged H/o Physical Assault yesterday around 7:30
PM (as told by pt. himself)
o H/o Drug Abuse (+)
o Non-LOC / vomiting / ENT bleed / Seizure
O/E (On Examination):
Pt. conscious, oriented
BP - 120/80 mmHg
PR - 80/min
XXX
L/O (Local Examination): Multiple abrasions over B/L
(bilateral) back, left side abdomen, B/L upper limb. Red
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 4 of 28
colon bruise over right hip, right hypochondriac region,
B/L upper back.
Side Note / Box: "Pt came to casualty around 10:00
[PM] yesterday and told about pain abd; pt reappeared
in casualty at around 1:30 AM and told about physical
assault.
Advice & Management
o Inj. T.T. 0.5 ml stat
o Inj. Ranilac 1 Amp stat
o X-Ray Abdomen - Supine - AP view
o X-Ray Chest - PA view
o Refer to SR Surgery / SR Medicine”
8. On 08.07.2013, information was received at Police Station Begum
Pur regarding the admission of an injured person at BSA Hospital following
a quarrel at Hari Darshan De-addiction Centre. The information was
recorded by HC Kalyan Sahai (PW-4) vide DD No. 8A, exhibited as Ex.
PW-4/A1, and was assigned to SI Prem Raj (PW-9) for necessary action.
Upon receiving the information, PW-9 visited BSA Hospital, where the
deceased was found admitted. However, the deceased was declared unfit
for recording his statement, and the matter was kept pending.
9. On the following day, PW-9 again visited BSA Hospital but did not
find the deceased there. Subsequently, on 12.07.2013, the Investigating
Officer came to know that the deceased had been shifted to Jaipur Golden
Hospital, Rohini. Accordingly, PW-9, accompanied by Ct. Ran Singh (PW-
3), visited the said hospital, where the deceased was undergoing treatment.
However, the attending doctors again declared him unfit for recording his
statement.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 5 of 28
10. During the course of investigation, PW-9 met Arun Kumar (PW-1),
the brother of the deceased, at Jaipur Golden Hospital and recorded his
statement, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. In the said statement, PW-1 narrated
the circumstances in which his brother had been admitted to the de-
addiction centre and alleged that the appellant had repeatedly assaulted the
deceased with kick blows on his abdomen when PW-1 attempted to take
him home on 07.07.2013. The relevant portion of the initial statement of
PW-1 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“7-7-13 7.30
कोसमयकर ȣब बजेशामम Ʌ अपनेभाई
व ǽण से ͧमलने गयातोम ɇने वहाँपरकामकरनेवाले
- ,
राजेशके ɮवारा अपनेभाईकोबाहरबुल वाया जोमेरा
भाईव ǽण ȣ कहनेलगा ͩक भाईमेरे
कुमारमेरेकोदेखतेह
कोयहाँपरइलाजनह ȣं करवानायहाँपरआऐ Ǒदन मेर ȣ
ͪपटाई करतेहैऔरम ɇ अपनेभाईकोलेकरचलनेलगा
तोराजेशवनशामुि Èत केसंचालकसंजयनेमेरेको
पकड़कररोड़परघसीटनेलगेतोमैअपनेभाईकोछुड़ाने
लगातोसंजयनेगाल ȣ ǽण
कुमारके
देतेहुएमेरेभाईव
पेटम Ʌ कईलातवघूसेमारेऔरकहा ͩक पहलेबाक ȧ के
,
पैसेदे तबअपनेभाईकोलेजानाजबमेरेभाईक ȧ
त ǒबयतÏयादा खराबहोनेलगीतोभाईकोम ɇ अपनेघर
लेगयाऔरघरसेअपनीम àमी कोसाथलेकरम ɇने अपने
Dr. BSA
भाईव ǽण [ को अ èपताल म Ʌ दा ͨखल
कुमारवमा
BSA -
करवायाऔरतबआप अ èप तालआएतोम ɇ
Diagnostic center
अरोड़ा म Ʌ इलाजकेबारेम Ʌ पताकरने
9-7-13
गयाथाऔर Ǒदनांक कोम ɇने अपनेभाईका
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 6 of 28
SPINDALES Hospital Prashant Vihar
इलाजके ͧलए
म Ʌ दा ͨखल करवायावहाँपरइलाजठ ȤकĤकार सेनह ȣं
10-7- 13
होनेकेकारण Ǒदनांक ãडन
कोजयपुरगो
“
अ èपताल म Ʌ इलाजके ͧलए दा ͨखल करवायाहै।
11. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, PW-9 prepared the rukka,
which was handed over to Ct. Ran Singh (PW-3) for registration of the FIR.
Consequently, FIR No. 220/2013 was registered at Police Station Begum
Pur under Sections 323, 341 and 34 IPC on 12.07.2013. The Investigation
Officer arrested the appellant and co-accused Rajesh Kumar. Since the
offences initially invoked were bailable, both accused persons were
released on bail.
12. Insofar as the subsequent medical treatment of the deceased is
concerned, PW-1 deposed that his brother continued to experience severe
abdominal pain and that an ultrasound examination revealed the presence
of fluid in his abdomen. As his condition did not improve, he was taken to
Springdale Hospital, where surgical intervention was advised. The
deceased was thereafter shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he
underwent abdominal surgery for intestinal perforation.
13. Despite receiving medical treatment, the condition of the deceased
subsequently deteriorated, and he expired on 15.07.2013 at Jaipur Golden
Hospital. Information regarding his death was conveyed to Police Station
Begum Pur vide DD No. 21A, exhibited as Ex. PW-9/B. Upon receiving
the information, PW-9 visited the hospital, where the body of the deceased
was identified by his brothers, Arun Kumar (PW-1) and Saurabh Kumar
Verma (PW-2). The death report and medical certificate of cause of death
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 7 of 28
were subsequently proved as Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B, respectively.
The cause of death as mentioned in the Ex. PW-9/B- medical certificate of
cause of death in reproduced as under:
14. On 16.07.2013, the post-mortem examination of the deceased was
conducted by Dr. Manoj Dhingra at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital,
Delhi, vide Post-Mortem Report No. 690/2013, exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A.
The post-mortem examination recorded the external and internal injuries
found on the body of the deceased. As per the opinion recorded in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 8 of 28
report, the cause of death was septicemic shock associated with damage to
the abdominal structures consequent to blunt-force impact. The relevant
portion of the Post-Mortem Report is reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 9 of 28
15. During the further course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
also sought a subsequent medical opinion concerning the nature of the
injuries and the cause of death. The medical material obtained from Jaipur
Golden Hospital, including the certificate exhibited as Ex. PW-8/D,
referred to the abdominal surgery undergone by the deceased and the
presence of multiple traumatic intestinal perforations. The said certificate
attributed the death to septicemia arising from traumatic intestinal
perforations.
16. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant and co-accused Rajesh Kumar for the offences
punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC. The matter was
thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions
Case No. 655/2018. Vide order dated 12.10.2018, charges under Section
304 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against both accused persons, to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 10 of 28
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
17. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nine
witnesses. The material witnesses included Arun Kumar (PW-1), brother of
the deceased and an alleged eyewitness to the occurrence; Saurabh Kumar
Verma (PW-2), who identified the body of the deceased; Dr. Kumar
Akhilesh (PW-6), who proved the MLC; Dr. Munish Wadhawan (PW-7),
who proved the post-mortem report; Manmohan Sharma (PW-8), who
proved the relevant medical records of Jaipur Golden Hospital; and SI Prem
Raj (PW-9), the Investigating Officer.
18. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of both
accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they
denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. The
appellant claimed false implication and stated that the deceased had been
discharged from the de-addiction centre in a normal condition. He further
alleged that a property dispute existed between PW-1 and the deceased, and
that he had been falsely implicated owing to previous enmity with PW-1.
Co-accused Rajesh Kumar, on the other hand, claimed that he was himself
undergoing treatment at the de-addiction centre and had merely intervened
during the altercation.
19. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 16.01.2025, acquitted
co-accused Rajesh Kumar of the charges under Section 304 read with
Section 34 IPC, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish that he
shared a common intention with the appellant to assault the deceased.
20. However, insofar as the present appellant is concerned, the learned
Trial Court held that the prosecution had established that he had repeatedly
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 11 of 28
assaulted the deceased with kick blows on his abdomen, resulting in
intestinal injuries which ultimately caused his death. The learned Trial
Court further held that although the appellant did not possess the intention
to cause death, the circumstances were sufficient to attribute to him the
knowledge contemplated under Section 304 Part II IPC. Accordingly, the
appellant was convicted under the said provision.
21. Consequently, vide order on sentence dated 01.03.2025, the appellant
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay
a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four months. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also
granted to the appellant.
22. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court,
seeking setting aside of his conviction and sentence.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the
learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 304
Part II IPC without properly appreciating the material contradictions in the
prosecution evidence, particularly the medical records and the testimony of
the complainant, Arun Kumar (PW-1). It is contended that the prosecution
has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted
the deceased or that the injuries allegedly inflicted by him resulted in the
death of Varun Kumar Verma.
24. Learned counsel places considerable reliance upon the MLC of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 12 of 28
deceased, exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A, and the testimony of PW-6, Dr. Kumar
Akhilesh. It is submitted that when the deceased was first taken to BSA
Hospital on 07.07.2013, at approximately 10:00 PM, he complained only
of abdominal pain, and no history of physical assault was disclosed either
by the deceased or by his brother, PW-1, who was accompanying him. It is
pointed out that the allegation of physical assault surfaced only when the
deceased was brought to the same hospital again at approximately 1:30 AM
on 08.07.2013. According to learned counsel, the subsequent disclosure of
assault, despite the absence of any such allegation during the initial hospital
visit, raises serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.
25. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was initially taken
to BSA Hospital and was thereafter shifted to Springdale Hospital and
subsequently to Jaipur Golden Hospital. It is contended that these repeated
changes of hospitals were made without informing the Investigating Officer
and that the deceased ultimately expired on 15.07.2013, approximately
eight days after the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel argues that the
intervening period, the successive hospital admissions and the course of
medical treatment assume significance in determining whether the death
could be directly attributed to the alleged assault. It is submitted that the
prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish an unbroken causal
connection between the alleged incident dated 07.07.2013 and the
subsequent death of the deceased.
26. It is further contended that the prosecution case rests substantially
upon the testimony of PW-1, who is the brother of the deceased and the sole
witness examined to establish the alleged assault. Learned counsel submits
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 13 of 28
that approximately thirty to forty persons were present at the de-addiction
centre at the relevant time; however, none of the inmates or other persons
allegedly present there was examined by the prosecution. It is also pointed
out that although PW-1 stated that he had taken the deceased home after
leaving the de-addiction centre and that their mother accompanied them to
the hospital, she was not examined as a prosecution witness.
27. Learned counsel also disputes the reliability of the testimony of PW-
1 and submits that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
It is contended that an altercation had admittedly taken place between PW-
1 and the appellant over the discharge of the deceased from the de-addiction
centre and the payment of outstanding charges. Learned counsel further
refers to the defence taken by the appellant in his statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he alleged that there was previous enmity
between him and PW-1 on account of an earlier scuffle. The appellant also
alleged that a property dispute existed between PW-1 and the deceased and
that the deceased had been assaulted after being taken home by his brother.
28. Learned counsel further draws attention to the medical history of the
deceased and submits that he had been admitted to the de-addiction centre
on 02.07.2013 for treatment of addiction. It is argued that the deceased was
reportedly addicted to a pain-relieving medication and that his initial
complaint at BSA Hospital was confined to abdominal pain. In this regard,
learned counsel contends that the medical history and the circumstances
preceding the subsequent hospital admissions ought to have been examined
more carefully before attributing the fatal abdominal injuries to the
appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 14 of 28
29. Learned counsel also questions the reliance placed by the learned
Trial Court upon the post-mortem report, exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A, and the
subsequent medical opinion concerning the cause of death. It is submitted
that although the post-mortem findings referred to septicemic shock
associated with damage to the abdominal structures, the subsequent
medical opinion describing the intestinal perforations as traumatic does not,
by itself, establish that the injuries were inflicted by the appellant.
30. Learned counsel specifically draws attention to the use of the
expression “traumatic intestinal perforation” in the subsequent medical
record and questions the manner in which the said opinion was recorded. It
is contended that the medical evidence was required to be appreciated in
light of the initial absence of any reported assault, the deceased's medical
condition, the subsequent treatment and the interval between the alleged
occurrence and death.
31. Learned counsel lastly points out that co-accused Rajesh Kumar,
who was also charged under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC in
connection with the same occurrence, has been acquitted by the learned
Trial Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
32. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter
referred to as the “APP”) appearing on behalf of the respondent–State
supports the impugned judgment of conviction and submits that the learned
Trial Court has correctly appreciated the oral and medical evidence on
record. It is contended that the prosecution has established that the appellant
assaulted the deceased, Varun Kumar Verma, by repeatedly inflicting kick
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 15 of 28
blows upon his abdomen, resulting in serious internal injuries which
ultimately caused his death.
33. Learned APP places particular reliance upon the MLC exhibited as
Ex. PW-6/A, wherein the history of physical assault on the previous
evening was specifically recorded. It is submitted that the medical
examination revealed multiple abrasions over the back and reddish bruises
over the right hip and abdominal region of the deceased. According to
learned APP, the presence of multiple injuries on the body of the deceased
lends corroboration to the prosecution version that he was subjected to
physical assault. It is further submitted that the injuries recorded in the
MLC are consistent with the testimony of Arun Kumar (PW-1), who was
an eyewitness to the occurrence.
34. Learned APP further submits that PW-1, being the brother of the
deceased, had categorically deposed that on 07.07.2013, when he visited
Hari Darshan De-addiction Centre, the deceased informed him that he did
not wish to remain admitted there as he was being beaten by the staff. It is
contended that when PW-1 attempted to take his brother home, the
appellant and co-accused Rajesh Kumar prevented him from doing so
without payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.3,500/-. Thereafter, co-
accused Rajesh Kumar allegedly caught hold of PW-1, while the appellant
dragged the deceased inside the de-addiction centre and repeatedly inflicted
kick blows upon his abdomen. Learned APP submits that the testimony of
PW-1 clearly establishes the role attributed to the appellant and is
corroborated by the medical evidence.
35. Learned APP also places reliance upon the post-mortem report,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 16 of 28
exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A, wherein the cause of death was opined to
be septicemic shock associated with damage to the abdominal structures
consequent to blunt-force impact. It is further submitted that the subsequent
medical opinion and the certificate exhibited as Ex. PW-8/D establish that
the deceased had undergone abdominal surgery on account of multiple
intestinal perforations and subsequently died due to septicemia resulting
from traumatic intestinal perforations.
36. Learned APP further submits that incidents of physical beating of
inmates are not uncommon in de-addiction centres, particularly where
persons undergoing treatment exhibit withdrawal symptoms and become
difficult to control. It is contended that such practices are prevalent in
certain de-addiction centres, including those functioning without proper
recognition or authorisation. Learned APP relies upon this submission to
emphasise the circumstances in which the deceased was allegedly assaulted
at Hari Darshan De-addiction Centre.
37. Learned APP accordingly submits that the eyewitness account of
PW-1, the injuries recorded in the MLC, the post-mortem findings and the
subsequent medical opinion, when appreciated together, sufficiently
establish the prosecution case against the appellant. It is, therefore,
contended that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under
Section 304 Part II IPC and that no ground for interference with the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2025 and order on sentence
dated 01.03.2025 is made out.
38. Learned APP further draws attention to the existence of another FIR
stated to have been registered against the appellant in connection with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 17 of 28
same de-addiction centre. It is submitted that the said circumstance is also
relevant to the prosecution's case concerning the functioning of the de-
addiction centre.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
39. This Court has heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the material on record.
40. The controversy in the present appeal is twofold. First, whether the
injuries sustained by Varun Kumar Verma can be attributed to the appellant
and secondly, whether the circumstances in which those injuries were
inflicted establish the knowledge necessary to sustain a conviction under
Section 304 Part II IPC.
41. The prosecution has principally relied upon the testimony of PW-1
Arun Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased and the only eyewitness
examined in respect of the alleged assault. PW-1 has specifically attributed
the act of inflicting fist and kick blows upon the deceased to the appellant.
According to him, the occurrence took place when he sought to take his
brother away from the de-addiction centre and a dispute arose over payment
of the outstanding charges. The relevant portion of his testimony is
reproduced hereunder:
WITNESSES STATEMENT IN
EXAMINATION-IN-
CHIEF
STATEMENT IN
CROSS-
EXAMINATION
PW- 1 ARUN
KUMAR
On seeing me, my brother
Varun Kumar Verma
started crying and told me
that he does not want to
reside there as he is beaten-
up there. On that, I told
I had not given any
document to IO qua
admission of my
brother Varun Kumar
Verma in the de-
addiction centre of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 18 of 28
aforesaid Sanjay and
Rajesh that I do not want to
keep my brother Varun
Kumar Verma anymore
there and I am taking my
brother alon with me.
However they told me that I
cannot take him unless I
pay the balance amount of
Rs. 3,500/- to them. Rajesh
caught hold of me and
Sanjay pulled my brother
Varun Kumar Verma inside
the said de-addiction
centre. Sanjay dragged him
in the adjoining room while
beating him. Sanjay gave
kicks and fists blows to him.
Sanjay also kicked him in
his stomach. Then Rajesh
told Sanjay to leave Varun
Kumar Verma and let him
go. Again Sanjay gave kick
blows in the stomach of
Varun Kumar Verma.
Thereafter I took my
brother Varun Kumar
Verma, reached home and
after taking my mother
along with me, I took my
brother Varun Kumar
Verma to Baba Saheb
Ambedkar Hospital in
Rohini for treatment. I told
the doctors there the entire
incident.
both the accused. Vol.
I am having the slip
issued by the accused
persons but the same
was never asked for by
the IO. It is wrong to
suggest that my
brother Varun Kumar
Verma habitually used
to drink liquor
everyday or that he
was having serious
medical complications
due to heavy drinking
or that because of the
same, he did not use to
do any work or was not
x-ray technician at the
aforesaid hospital.
XXX
On 07/07/2013,
besides both the
accused, myself and
my brother Varun
Kumar, one other
person (perhaps
working there), had
brought my brother to
ground floor, but had
left immediately
thereafter. It is wrong
to suggest that I have
falsely implicated both
the accused persons as
I had a scuffle earlier
with accused Sanjay
or that there was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 19 of 28
previous enmity with
him or that is why I
have also roped in his
associate accused
Rajesh
42. The testimony of PW-1 finds support in the medical record to the
extent that the deceased had sustained physical injuries. The MLC, Ex. PW-
6/A, records multiple abrasions and bruises, including injuries over the
abdominal region. However, an aspect which requires consideration is that
the deceased initially visited BSA Hospital at approximately 10:00 PM on
07.07.2013 with a complaint of abdominal pain alone. It was during his
subsequent visit at approximately 1:30 AM on 08.07.2013 that a history of
physical assault was recorded. PW-6 Dr. Kumar Akhilesh, who proved the
MLC, acknowledged the same during cross-examination. The relevant
testimony of PW- 6 is reproduced hereinbelow:
WITNESSES STATEMENT IN
EXAMINATION-IN-
CHIEF
STATEMENT IN
CROSS-
EXAMINATION
PW- 6 Dr.
Kumar
Akhilesh
I have gone through the
MLC No.7350/13 dt.
08.07.13 of patient Varun,
Male, aged 25 years.
Patient initially came to the
Casualty around 10.00 PM
yesterday ( 07.07.13 ) and
told about pain abdomen;
patient re-appear in
casualty at around 01.30
am ( 08.07.13 ) and told
about physical assault. The
It is correct that when
the patient initially
came at Casualty
around 10.00 pm on
07.07.13, as per MLC
record patient told
only about pain
abdomen.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 20 of 28
patient was brought to the
hospital at about 01.30 am
(night) on 08.07.13 with the
alleged history of physical
assault yesterday
(07.07.13) at around 07.30
pm as told by patient
himself. The injured was
medically examined by Dr.
Sandeep Kumar, JR
Casualty under the
supervision of Dr. Brijesh
Patel, CMO and found
injuries details mentioned
in the MLC now Ex-
PW6/A.
43. The learned Trial Court, while considering this discrepancy,
observed that PW-1 might have informed the attending doctors about the
assault during the initial visit, but that the doctors might not have recorded
the same as the incident appeared to be trivial. In the considered view of
this Court, such an explanation cannot be presumed in the absence of
supporting evidence. The contemporaneous record must ordinarily be read
for what it contains and an omission cannot be supplied by assuming what
might have transpired during the medical examination.
44. At the same time, the absence of a recorded history of assault during
the first visit does not necessarily establish that no assault had taken place.
The deceased himself subsequently furnished a history of physical assault,
and the medical examination disclosed physical injuries. The discrepancy,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 21 of 28
therefore, calls for caution in appreciating PW-1's testimony, but does not
justify rejecting his entire account.
45. Another relevant circumstance emerges from the cross-examination
of PW-9 SI Prem Raj, the Investigating Officer. PW-9 admitted that he had
not recorded the statement of any inmate, employee or other person present
at the de-addiction centre. He also acknowledged that he did not
independently verify the whereabouts of the deceased after his discharge
from the centre. The discharge register, Ex. PW-9/PX1, recorded the time
of discharge as 9:30 PM, whereas PW-1 had stated that he first took the
deceased home and thereafter proceeded to BSA Hospital along with his
mother. No independent verification of this intervening movement was
undertaken.
WITNESSES STATEMENT IN
EXAMINATION-
IN-CHIEF
STATEMENT IN CROSS-
EXAMINATION
PW- 9 SI
PREM RAJ
On 08.07.2013, I reached at
the hospital at about 2:15 am
(midnight) at BSA hospital
where patient Varun was under
treatment. No family member
of the injured Varun met me in
the hospital. The doctor
initially stated that there is no
visible injury and ultrasound
examination would be
required.
XXX
I did not independently verify
the statement of Arun
regarding the whereabouts of
the deceased during this time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 22 of 28
I did not check any CCTV
footage of any place in this
regard. Vol., there was no
CCTV camera in the nasha
mukti kendra. It is correct that
I did not record the statement
of any person or official or
other inmate of nasha mukti
kendra. I lodged the case on
the version given by Arun ."
46. These omissions assume significance because the prosecution case
rests substantially upon the testimony of PW-1. Nevertheless, defective
investigation, by itself, is not sufficient to absolve an accused where the
available evidence otherwise establishes the occurrence. Upon considering
the testimony of PW-1 alongside the injuries recorded in Ex. PW-6/A and
the history of physical assault furnished by the deceased, this Court finds
sufficient evidence to establish that the appellant inflicted bodily injuries
upon the deceased during the altercation at the de-addiction centre. The
contention that the entire occurrence was fabricated has not been
substantiated by any convincing material.
47. The next question concerns the nature of the offence made out from
the aforesaid act. The post-mortem report, Ex. PW-7/A, attributes the death
of the deceased to septicemic shock associated with damage to the
abdominal structures consequent to blunt-force impact. The subsequent
medical opinion, Ex. PW-8/D, also refers to multiple traumatic intestinal
perforations. There is therefore medical evidence connecting the death with
traumatic abdominal injuries. The fact that the deceased underwent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 23 of 28
treatment at different hospitals and expired approximately eight days after
the occurrence does not, by itself, interrupt the causal connection.
Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC expressly recognises that a person
causing bodily injury may remain responsible for the resulting death
notwithstanding that proper treatment might have prevented it.
48. What nevertheless requires independent consideration is the mental
element accompanying the appellant's act. Section 304 Part II IPC does not
punish every act of assault which subsequently results in death. For the said
provision to apply, it must be established that the accused committed the
act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Such knowledge
may be inferred from the manner of assault, the nature of the injuries
intended, the part of the body targeted and the surrounding circumstances.
It cannot, however, be inferred solely from the fact that the injured person
subsequently succumbed to the injuries.
49. In Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 2 SCC 788 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court explained that the intention and knowledge contemplated
under Section 299 IPC constitute distinct mental elements, and that
knowledge refers to awareness of the likelihood of death resulting from the
act. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:
“33. As was pointed out by this Court in Anda v.
State of Rajasthan "intent" and "knowledge" in the
ingredients of Section 299 postulate the existence of
positive mental attitude and this mental condition is
the special mens rea necessary for the offence. The
guilty intention in the first two conditions
contemplates the intended death of the person
harmed or the intentional causing of an injury likely
to cause his death. The knowledge in the third
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 24 of 28
condition contemplates knowledge of the likelihood
of the death of the person.”
50. In the present case, the learned Trial Court accepted that the
occurrence arose during an altercation concerning payment of the
outstanding charges and that there was neither any premeditation nor an
intention to cause death. It nevertheless attributed knowledge to the
appellant on the ground that the deceased was undergoing treatment at a de-
addiction centre and that the appellant ought to have been aware of his
health condition.
51. Having examined the aforesaid reasoning, this Court is unable to
agree with the inference drawn by the learned Trial Court. The mere fact
that the deceased was receiving treatment for addiction cannot, without
more, establish that the appellant knew that the injuries likely to result from
the altercation could cause his death. No material has been brought on
record to establish that the appellant was aware of any specific medical
condition of the deceased which rendered him particularly vulnerable to a
fatal injury.
52. It is true that PW-1 attributed repeated kick blows upon the abdomen
to the appellant. Such an assault cannot be regarded as harmless,
particularly when directed at a sensitive part of the body. However, the
evidence does not furnish any detailed account of the degree of force
employed nor was any weapon used during the occurrence. The incident
arose suddenly over a dispute concerning the discharge of the deceased.
These circumstances do not exclude the appellant's responsibility for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 25 of 28
bodily injuries, but they are relevant while determining whether he knew
that his act was likely to cause death.
53. Knowledge of the precise internal injuries is not an essential
requirement of Section 304 Part II IPC. The relevant enquiry is whether the
accused knew that death was a likely consequence of his act. In the
circumstances of the present case, although the assault resulted in serious
injuries, this Court is not satisfied that the prosecution has established the
requisite knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of the learned
Trial Court on this aspect rests substantially upon the deceased's health
condition rather than upon circumstances demonstrating the appellant's
awareness of the likelihood of death.
54. However, the evidence does establish that the appellant intentionally
inflicted bodily injuries upon the deceased. Having regard to the repeated
blows directed at the abdominal region and the serious injuries which
resulted therefrom, this Court finds that the appellant's act attracts the
offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325
IPC. The prosecution has established the intentional infliction of bodily
harm and the resulting grievous injuries, although the higher degree of
knowledge necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC
has not been proved.
55. In the present case also, although the medical evidence establishes
that the deceased sustained grievous abdominal injuries which ultimately
proved fatal, the circumstances do not establish beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellant inflicted those injuries with knowledge of the likelihood
of death. The learned Trial Court was, therefore, not justified in sustaining
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 26 of 28
the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. The conviction deserves to be
altered to one under Section 325 IPC.
56. Coming to the question of sentence, the incident pertains to the year
2013. The appellant has faced criminal proceedings for a considerable
period, and the occurrence was not premeditated. The learned Trial Court
also noticed the appellant's family circumstances while considering the
question of sentence. Having regard to these circumstances, the nature of
the offence now found established and the period of incarceration
undergone by the appellant, this Court considers it appropriate to limit the
custodial sentence to the period already undergone, subject to verification
of his updated nominal roll.
CONCLUSION
57. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is partly
allowed . The judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2025 and order on
sentence dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-03, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.
655/2018, arising out of FIR No. 220/2013 registered at Police Station
Begum Pur, are modified to the extent that the conviction of the appellant
under Section 304 Part II IPC is set aside and is substituted with conviction
under Section 325 IPC.
58. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 26.02.2026, passed in
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1042/2025 , this Court had suspended the sentence of the
appellant during the pendency of the present appeal, while recording that
he had already undergone approximately one year of imprisonment out of
the sentence of five years imposed upon him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 27 of 28
59. Accordingly, for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, the
substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant . The fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the
learned Trial Court, along with the default sentence of four months’
rigorous imprisonment, is upheld.
60. Subject to the aforesaid directions regarding payment of fine, the
appellant shall not be required to undergo any further substantive
imprisonment in the present case. He shall be released forthwith, if in
custody, provided he is not required in any other case. The existing bail
bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged, subject to compliance with
Section 437A Cr.P.C., as applicable.
61. The appeal, along with pending applications, if any, stands disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.
62. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent and to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary
compliance.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 6, 2026/b/ PSB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:22:41
CRL.A. 647/2025 Page 28 of 28