Ajmer vs State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1290-SB-2010(O&M)
Reserved on: 23.09.2026
Pronounced on: 31.10.2026
Uploaded on:
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the
full judgment is pronounced: Full
Mandeep
.. Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
..Respondent
2. CRA-S-842-SB-2011(O&M)
Reserved on: 05.10.2026
Pronounced on: 31.10.2026
Ajmer
.. Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PUJA CHOPRA
Present: Ms. Kajal, Advocate, for
Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate,
for the appellant (in CRA-S-1290-SB-2010).
Ms. Palak Arora, Advocate ( Amicus Curiae)
for the appellant (in CRA-S-842-SB-2011).
Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.
…
PUJA CHOPRA , J.
By way of the instant judgment, this Court proposes to
decide the afore-titled criminal appeals. Both the appellants mentioned
above were accused in FIR No.75, dated 13.02.2008, under Sections
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
307/325/34 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Jind. However, during

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 2
trial accused Ajmer absconded and was later tried separately. Appellant
Mandeep was convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Jind vide judgement
dated 03.05.2010 under Sections 325/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo
₹
imprisonment for a period of 03 years along with a fine of 3000/- with
default sentence of RI for 06 months vide order dated 04.05.2010.
Appellant Ajmer was subsequently convicted by learned Sessions Judge,
Jind vide separate judgement dated 01.03.2011 under Sections 325/34
IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years along with a fine of
₹
3000/- with default sentence of RI for a period of 06 months.
2. The appeal filed by appellant Mandeep came up for hearing
before this Court on 23.09.2026, and upon hearing the arguments of the
learned counsel for the appellant and going through the records of the
case, the judgement was reserved. However, the other appeal filed by
appellant Ajmer was heard on 05.10.2026 due to non-availability of
counsel earlier, and the judgement was reserved after hearing the learned
counsel for the appellant and going through the record of the case.
Accordingly, both the cases are being decided vide common judgment to
avoid conflict of decisions, though the evidence has been appreciated
separately with able assistance of respective counsels in separate appeals.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Rajinder Singh
was running a property dealership business in partnership with Sanjay in
a rented shop on Bhiwani Road, Jind. They had sold plots to Ajmer and
some payment was outstanding towards him to which Ajmer Singh
₹
agreed to pay 70,000/- on 28.01.2008. But he did not honour his
commitment and kept postponing on one or the other pretext. However,
on repeated asking, Ajmer came to their shop on 05.02.2008 and made
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
₹
part payment of 25,000/-. But they asked him that payment had already

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 3
been delayed and despite that he had not been making the full payment.
While the talks were going on, around 7:00 PM, Mandeep also came
there and showing his highhandedness said that Ajmer, who was his
neighbour and also his maternal uncle in relation, would make the
payment in the manner in which he was making, and when he tried to
take away Ajmer, complainant Rajinder Singh asked him to settle his
accounts, but Mandeep got enraged and ran to his house and brought a
wooden handle of spade (Binda) and inflicted a blow with it on his left
temporal region upon which he fell down, and even thereafter, he gave
him kick and fist blows, when the complainant Rajinder Singh raised
noise of ‘Mar Dia - Mar Dia’. Then his partner, Sanjay and Ashok came
there and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter,
complainant Rajinder Singh also gave slaps and fist blows to the accused
in his self defence. He was then taken to General Hospital, Jind by Sanjay
and Ashok in a private vehicle. The police on receipt of ruqa from the
said hospital reached there and recorded the statement of complainant
having been declared fit to make statement on 07.02.2008 and on the
basis thereof DDR No.10 was recorded in Police Post, Rohtak Road, Jind.
The CT scan report was received on 13.02.2008.
3.1 Initially, the case was registered under Sections 325/34 IPC.
The accused were arrested on 13.03.2008 and the alleged weapon of
offence was recovered from accused Mandeep. After completion of
investigation, challan was presented before the learned Illaqa Magistrate.
Thereafter, accused Ajmer absconded on 15.09.2009 and his bail was
cancelled. Ajmer was declared a Proclaimed Offender. He was later
arrested on 20.01.2010 and supplementary challan was filed against him
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
before learned Illaqa Magistrate.

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 4
3.2 Finding that the offence under section 307 IPC could be
involved, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide
commitment order dated 26.03.2009 and charges were framed against the
accused Mandeep under Section 307/34 IPC.
3.3 Likewise, learned CJM, Jind committed the case of Ajmer to
the Court of Sessions vide order dated 01.04.2010 and charges were
framed against accused Ajmer under Sections 307/34 IPC vide order
dated 16.04.2010.
3.4 In Mandeep’s case, prosecution examined as many as 12
witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. The statement of
accused Mandeep was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who pleaded
innocence and false implication. He examined 02 witnesses in his
defence and inter alia set up the case that he himself had received injuries
vide MLR Ex.PD and his statement had also been recorded by the police
as Ex.DB. However, due to influence of complainant, no action was taken
against the complainant party and the police did not conduct fair
investigation.
3.5 After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record and hearing the arguments of the parties, learned trial Court
acquitted accused Mandeep from charge under Sections 307/34 IPC,
however, he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 325/34 IPC as
aforesaid.
3.6 In case of Ajmer, however, 13 PWs were examined and no
evidence was led in defence. Unlike Mandeep, Ajmer did not receive any
injury. Be that as it may, the end result remained the same, i.e. conviction
and sentence under Sections 325/34 IPC as aforesaid. Ajmer was also
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
acquitted under Sections 307/34 IPC.

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 5
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties in both
cases separately and has gone through the respective records with their
able assistance.
5. The core question that arises in these two appeals is not
whether conviction can be for offence under Section 325/34 IPC when
only charge under Section 307/34 IPC had been framed against the
accused, as no charge under Section 325/34 IPC had been framed in
either case. This of course is permissible legal position in view of Section
222 Cr.P.C., which permits the Court to convict for a minor offence,
though the accused was not charged with the same.
6. The question which arises is whether the evidence which has
been discredited and disbelieved for conviction under Section 307/34 IPC
can be relied upon for conviction under Sections 325/34 IPC.
7. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant(s)
in both cases is that if the substratum of prosecution case is disbelieved
and accused are acquitted under Sections 307/34 IPC, no conviction can
be made under Sections 325/34 IPC either. The argument has been
correctly raised as the prosecution is obliged to prove its core case. In
injury cases, the facts, inter alia , which are required to be established by
prosecution are the presence of injured/accused, assault/occurrence,
nature of weapon used, and nature of injury caused. In a situation where
the core prosecution case has been established and the issue is only
regarding the mens rea or the intention with which the injury was
inflicted then, in the circumstances of the case, if the Court disbelieves
intention to kill but finds the core case of prosecution to be reliable,
conviction can be made under Section 325 IPC with the aid of Section
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
222 Cr.P.C. or even with the aid of Section 221(2) Cr.P.C. when charge

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 6
has been framed only under Section 307 IPC. However, if the prosecution
evidence is not credible and has been disbelieved qua Section 307 IPC,
the same evidence cannot be believed or relied upon for conviction under
Section 325 IPC. Due to this, argument raised by learned counsel for
respective parties, both cases are being decided together, after separately
appreciating the evidence in both cases.
8. A perusal of judgements passed by learned trial Court in both
cases reveals that it has completely discredited the prosecution version
and disbelieved prosecution witnesses, at least qua offence under Section
307/34 IPC. The accused had no intention to inflict injuries to
complainant. There was no pre-planning from any of the sides. Rather,
the incident took place by chance at the instance of complainant Rajinder
Singh and his partner Sanjay, who insisted Ajmer to pay the entire
amount of Rs.70,000/-, which was due against him. Thus, the accused
had no ill will before the date of incident against the complainant
Rajinder Singh or his partner Sanjay to cause any injuries to them.
Rather, accused Ajmer went to the shop of complainant party and paid
Rs.25,000/- to them, which according to the complainant party was only
a part payment.
9. The occurrence took place on 05.02.2008 at around 7:00 PM
₹
when accused Ajmer made part payment of 25,000/- to complainant
₹
party instead of 70,000/- which was owed to complainant party as per
the version of prosecution. Even as per initial version of complainant, he
also caused injuries to accused Mandeep though allegedly in self defence.
10. However, the version of accused Mandeep, who was also
injured, was that injury was caused to complainant on 05.02.2008 at
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
around 7:00 PM when accused Ajmer had gone to shop of Sanjay for

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 7
₹
settlement of his account and paid 25,000/- in cash to Sanjay and when
Sanjay asked for remaining amount, both the appellants requested Sanjay
that they will pay the remaining amount as soon as possible, but Sanjay
started manhandling accused Ajmer and when accused Mandeep
requested Sanjay not to do so, then complainant Rajinder Singh, and
another person came inside the shop of Sanjay and started hurling abuses
to Ajmer. When they were stopped from doing so, Sanjay took out his
pistol and pointed the same at Ajmer, whereafter the accused Mandeep
went to police post to inform the Police and when he came back to the
shop, Sanjay and complainant Rajinder started giving blows to him with
wooden handle of spade and during the scuffle, the wooden handle came
to his hand and he hit the complainant Rajinder. As aforesaid, accused
Mandeep also suffered injuries and his statement was recorded by the
police, but no action was taken thereon. The FIR in the case was
registered at the instance of complainant on 13.02.2008, whereas the
occurrence took place on 05.02.2008. Thus, there was a delay of eight
days in registration of FIR.
11. In trial of Mandeep, ASI Randhir Singh (PW10), who partly
investigated the case, deposed that on receipt of telephonic information
from General Hospital Jind, where the complainant had got himself
admitted, he went there on 06.02.2008 and sought opinion of the Doctor
by moving the application (Ex.PN) regarding his fitness to record his
statement, but he was declared unfit to make statement. No such opinion
regarding unfitness of complainant is on record. According to PW10, on
next day i.e. 07.02.2008, he again visited General Hospital and the
complainant was declared fit to make statement, whereupon statement of
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
complainant Ex.PK was recorded on which he made his endorsement

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 8
Ex.PK/1 and on basis of the same, DDR No.10 dated 07.02.2008 was
recorded (Mark B). On 13.02.2008, CT scan report Ex.PG was received
on which ASI Randhir Singh (PW10) made his endorsement Ex.PO on
the copy of DDR and converted the same to the FIR (Ex.PI). This
explanation for delay has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court as a
perusal of MLR (ExPB) of complainant Rajinder Singh (PW7) dated
05.02.2008 at around 08:30 PM reveals that he was conscious and well
oriented even at the time of his alleged admission to PGIMS Rohtak.
Medical record (Ex.PM) of Rajinder Singh (PW7) also shows that on
13.02.2008 when the complainant got himself admitted there, he was
conscious and well oriented, PW9 Dr. Rahul Garg also admitted in his
cross-examination that the patient was fully conscious at the time of his
admission in PGIMS Rohtak on 13.02.2008. In fact on 06.02.2008,
complainant PW7 got his CT scan done from some private clinic known
as Neelam Ultrasound Centre, Jind and the report given by the said clinic
(Ex.PG) also does not show that the complainant was unconscious. In
fact, from the date of incident on 05.02.2008 till 13.02.2008 and even
thereafter, the complainant never lost consciousness. Strangely, during
this period, complainant PW7 himself gave a writing (Mark A) to
Incharge Police Post, Rohtak Road, Jind, which was admitted by PW7
who also identified his signatures thereon. A perusal of writing dated
08.02.2008 shows that complainant Rajinder Singh (PW7) made a
request to Incharge Police Post, Rohtak Road, Jind to refrain him from
conducting any further investigation till 14.02.2008 due to marriage of
his partner Sanjay (PW8) on 09.02.2008. In this writing, he also stated
that on 14.02.2008, he will produce all documents and by that time they
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 9
will make due deliberations. This writing has also been admitted by PW8
Sanjay. It is apparent from the chronology of events that the medical
evidence has been procured by the complainant, who was fully conscious
and deliberately delayed the FIR to get a favourable report. Another
interesting aspect is that PW8 Sanjay deposed that the injured
complainant was initially taken to Police Post Rohtak Road, Jind and on
the directions of Police, he was taken to General Hospital Jind. Learned
trial Court has held in para 27, “ It is thus very astonishing that when the
incident had come to the knowledge of the police immediately after the
occurrence then why it did not swung into action, rather ASI Randhir
Singh (PW-10) visited the hospital on the next day i.e. 06.02.2008.
Sanjay (PW-8) was also an eyewitness of the occurrence and, thus, law
could have been set into motion immediately after the incident but the
police kept on sitting on the matter till 13.02.2008 and, thus, inordinate
and unexplained delay of 8 days is fatal to the prosecution. ”
12. Further, the police investigation was also held to be tainted
by learned trial Court. After the complainant PW7 was allegedly admitted
to General Hospital Jind, ruqa (Ex.PC) was sent by Medical Officer to
SHO, PS City, Jind. Accused Mandeep was also admitted on the same
date and time in General Hospital Jind and ruqa (Ex.PE) was also sent to
SHO, PS City Jind in this regard and accused Mandeep was examined
Medico- legally by Dr. Satish Sulekh (PW1), who prepared his MLR
(Ex.PD). The statement of Mandeep was recorded in the hospital as
Ex.DB. However, when the statement of complainant (Ex.PK) was
recorded on basis of which DDR No.10 dated 07.02.2008 was recorded,
the version of accused was suppressed. ASI Randhir Singh (PW10) not
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
only suppressed the version of accused side, but also committed forgery

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 10
in as much as incomplete copy of DDR, Mark B, was filed with the
challan and not the true/original copy of DDR. The original DDR No.10
dated 07.02.2008 was put to PW12 ASI Jai Bhagwan, who admitted that
the correct copy of DDR (Mark B) is Ex.DD, where the statement of
accused Mandeep was also contained. He thus admitted that Mark B is
incomplete/incorrect. This fact was also admitted by ASI Ramnivas, who
was examined as DW1, and deposed that he had prepared this document
as ASI Randhir Singh, Investigating Officer, had asked him to do so, and
that Ex.DD is correct copy of DDR No.10 dated 07.02.2008. DW2
Constable Kamal Singh also deposed that original statement of accused
Mandeep was attached with Police file which is Ex.DB on which
endorsement was made by ASI Randhir Singh as Ex.DC. Regarding these
facts/fiasco, learned trial Court has held in para 28, “… A perusal of
statement Ex.DB shows that the same is in consonance with his defence.
Thus, the earliest version of the complainant Rajinder Singh (PW-7) and
that of accused Mandeep culminated in DDR Ex.DD but Investigating
Officer ASI Randhir Singh PW-10 concealed this material fact and
proceeded malafidely with further investigation and acted on one side
without adhering to trace out the truth in the statement Ex.DB of the
accused. He was duty bound to find out the cause of injuries sustained by
the accused in the course of the same incident in which Rajinder Singh
complainant (PW-7) sustained injury. If he would have done so, the
defence version of the incident would have been before him and the
investigation would not have been one-sided. Since he failed to do so, the
investigation suffers from serious infirmity causing prejudice to the
accused in his defence. Complainant Rajinder Singh (PW-7) has stated
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 11
that he had also given fist blows to the accused Mandeep but despite that
ASI Randhir Singh - Investigating Officer (PW-10) has not given any
explanation that why he did not look into the cross version at all though,
as discussed above, accused Mandeep was also medicolegally examined
vide MLR Ex.PD simultaneously. Hence, it can be safely inferred that the
investigation conducted partly by Investigating Officer ASI Randhir
Singh (PW-10) of this case is tainted one and his statement regarding
unconsciousness of complainant Rajinder Singh (PW-7) is totally false.”
13. The wooden handle of spade was not sent to FSL for forensic
examination to verify if the same was blood stained or not. ASI Jai
Bhagwan (PW12) admitted that he had not prepared the sketch of the
same, and also that such type of handles are easily available in the
market. The version of PW6 Constable Balraj Singh, who stated that the
handle of spade was blood stained, is contradictory to deposition of ASI
Jai Bhagwan (PW12) who stated that he had not sent the handle to FSL,
as the same was not blood stained. So much so, prosecution has not
examined MHC to link evidence that the said handle was kept in safe
custody from the date when the same was recovered to the date when the
same was produced in the Court.
14. Learned trial Court has discredited the medical evidence
also. The offence under Section 307 IPC was added after obtaining
opinion of Dr. Satish Sulekh (PW1) as Ex.PF/3, who opined the injury to
be dangerous to life. However, Dr. Satish Sulekh had merely conducted
the MLR. Thereafter, the subsequent treatment was allegedly taken from
PGIMS Rohtak. No opinion regarding nature of injury was taken from
the treating Hospital i.e. PGIMS Rohtak. In fact, Dr. Satish Sulekh stated
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
that he had not seen the bed head ticket of PGIMS, Rohtak. Even PW12

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 12
ASI Jai Bhagwan stated in cross-examination that he had not collected
bed head ticket of the patient from General Hospital, Jind and did not
move any application before the concerned doctor of PGIMS Rohtak
seeking his opinion as to whether the injury on the person of injured
Rajinder Singh (PW7) was dangerous to life.
15. Learned trial Court noted the discrepancy between the
medical reports. A perusal of CT scan report Ex.PG proved by Dr.
Neelam Gupta (PW3) showed that complainant had suffered fracture of
left frontal bone and contusion in temporal parietal region. The said
opinion is contrary to opinion of Dr. Satish Sulekh, General Hospital,
Jind (PW1), who admitted in his cross-examination that as per x-ray
report and CT scan report (Mark A) of PGIMS Rohtak, there was fracture
of left temporal bone. Dr. Satish Sulekh categorically admitted that
frontal bone and left temporal bone are two different bones. Learned trial
Court held, “ Hence, it can safely be inferred that the prosecution was not
clear or sure in itself that injury No. 2 suffered by the
complainant/injured Rajinder Singh (PW-7) was fracture of left frontal
bone or left temporal bone. ” … “ Dr. Satish Sulekh while appearing as
PW1 has specifically admitted that on 16.04.2008 finding difference in
between the NCCT Report No.MRD/4/08/1223 dated 25.03.2008 and
discharge cards No.65683 dated 13.02.2008 regarding fractured bones
of complainant/injured Rajinder Singh (PW7) as according to discharge
card air was present in the injured tissue, whereas according to the
NCCT report cyst was present, he made request Ex.PF/2 to the Head of
X-ray Department, PGIMS, Rohtak. ” … “ Dr. Satish Sulekh (PW1), who
gave his report Ex.PF/3, declaring injury number two as dangerous to
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
life. ” At the time of giving such opinion, PW1 did not even examine the

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 13
complainant. Dr. Rahul Garg, PGIMS Rohtak (PW9) deposed that there
was fracture of left temporal bone, but in his cross-examination, he
specifically admitted that he did not mention in his report Ex.PF/4 as to
on which part of skull bone the fracture was found on the person of
injured Rajinder Singh.
16. Be that as it may as aforesaid, complainant never lost
consciousness and, in fact, himself made application to attend the
marriage of his partner PW8 Sanjay during the interregnum period. The
learned trial Court thus disbelieved the core prosecution case and
acquitted the accused under Section 307 IPC by holding:
“36. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is evident that the
investigation was not conducted in a fair manner and ASI Randhir
Singh partly Investigating Officer (PW-10) was out and out to
book the accused under Section 307 IPC and the opinion
(Ex.PF/3) given by Dr. Satish Sulekh is not correct and is not
based on any material documentary evidence because, as
discussed above, the same was contradictory in itself and, thus, no
case under Section 307 IPC is made out.”
17. In case of Ajmer, the position is not any different.
Complainant Rajinder Singh was examined as PW1, his partner Sanjay
was examined as PW2. Dr. Neelam Gupta was examined as PW3, Dr.
Satish Sulekh as PW4, C. Balraj Singh as PW9, ASI Randhir Singh as
PW10, ASI Jai Bhagwan as PW11, Dr. Rahul Garg as PW13 along with
other witnesses. PW12 Ashwani Kumar, Additional Ahlmad in the court
of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jind produced the judicial file of Sessions
case titled “State v. Mandeep” in which M/s Vani Gopal Sharma, the then
CJM, Jind had declared accused Ajmer as Proclaimed Offender vide
order dated 26.03.2009.
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 14
18. Accused Ajmer neither caused any injury to
injured/complainant Rajinder Singh nor he himself suffered any injury.
The only role attributed to him was that on his asking co-accused
Mandeep had caused injuries to complainant Rajinder Singh but while
appearing in trial as PW1, the latter did not say so. In Ajmer’s case also,
learned trial Court held that “ inordinate and unexplained delay of 08
days is fatal to the prosecution .” It was also held that “ Thus, it can safely
be inferred that that the accused had no ill will before the date of
incident against the complainant Rajinder Singh (PW1) or his partner
Sanjay (PW2) to cause any injuries to them. ” It was also held, “ The
investigation of ASI Randhir Singh (PW10) is quite tainted… ” … “ He
being investigating officer of this case should have conducted the
investigation in a fair manner. Since he was out and out for success of the
case in connivance with the complainant party therefore deliberately
tried to conceal many facts from the Court. Man may tell a lie but the
circumstances not. ” The learned trial Court also discredited the medical
evidence. It was held that the prosecution was not clear or sure in itself
that injury No.2 suffered by complainant-injured Rajinder Singh was
fracture of left frontal bone or left temporal bone. It was also held, “ Dr.
Satish Sulekh (PW4) was not competent to give definite opinion Ex.PG/3
declaring injury No.2 as dangerous to life and it was only the treating
doctor Dr. Rahul Garg (PW13) who could have given correct opinion. ”
No such opinion is forthcoming.
19. The role of Ajmer is to be examined in the backdrop of the
common intention attributed to both the accused, i.e. Ajmer and
Mandeep. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
found that injuries suffered by complainant Rajinder Singh was caused

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 15
by Mandeep in furtherance of the common intention of both. However,
the occurrence, injury and medical evidence has been disbelieved by
learned trial Court for offence under Section 307/34 IPC and the same
evidence cannot be relied upon for conviction under Section 325/34 IPC
when prosecution has failed to establish its core case.
20. In Sunil Kundu and another v. State of Jharkhand, 2013(4)
SCC 422 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed, “ ...This Court held
that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular
evidence, oral evidence of eyewitnesses has to get priority as medical
evidence is basically opinionative. But, when the evidence of the
eyewitnesses is totally inconsistent with the evidence given by the
medical experts then evidence is appreciated in a different perspective by
the courts. It was observed that when medical evidence specifically rules
out the injury claimed to have been inflicted as per the eyewitnesses'
version, then the court can draw adverse inference that the prosecution
version is not trustworthy.”
21. In Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. [(1952) 2 SCC 560 , it was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Court must make an attempt
to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this
could only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood.
Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and
the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the
Court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the
prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the
prosecution completely from the context and the background against
which they are made, then this principle will not apply.
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-1290-2010(O&M) & Anr. 16
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja @ Rajinder versus
State of Haryana, 2015(3) SCR 947 , has held as under:
“ 13 . … The court must assess the extent to which the deposition
of a witness can be relied upon. The court must make every
attempt to separate falsehoods from the truth, and it must only be
in exceptional circumstances, when it is entirely impossible to
separate the grain from the chaff, for the same are so inextricably
intertwined, that the entire evidence of such a witness must be
discarded.”
23. A perusal of evidence, oral and documentary, in both the
aforesaid cases reveals that the entire prosecution version regarding the
manner of occurrence, investigation, and medical evidence are not
worthy of credence. The witnesses are not reliable, and have already been
discredited by the learned trial Court in both cases, even though qua
Section 307 IPC. Thus, it is not safe to rely on such tainted and sketchy
evidence to convict the accused even under Sections 325/34 IPC.
24. Accordingly, both the accused are hereby acquitted by
granting them benefit of doubt. The criminal appeals are allowed.
Bail bonds, if any, stands discharged.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Registry to pay the requisite fee to learned Amicus Curiae as
per rules.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
(PUJA CHOPRA)
31.10.2026 JUDGE
Rajan
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
RAJAN
2026.11.03 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document