Yashmeet Kaur vs State of Haryana

i)

xxx

ii) Case of the prosecution as culled out from the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Gurugram, reads as under:

“3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.08.2025 at about 4:10 AM, information was received at Police Station DLF Phase-3, Gurugram, from Narayana Hospital, Block-V, DLF Phase-3, that one Harish Kumar, son of Bal Kishan, resident of village Baliyawas, had been brought to the hospital with stab injuries inflicted by an unknown person.On receipt of the said information, Inspector/SHO Yogesh Kumar, along with ASI Joginder Singh, ASI Rajesh, L/CT Monika and ASI Ashok, immediately proceeded to Narayana Hospital in a government vehicle.

3.2

On reaching the hospital, the attending doctor declared Harish Kumar dead. The police obtained the rukka and death summary of the deceased and informed the family members of the deceased, the forensic team and senior police officers about the incident. It came to light that the deceased had been brought to the hospital by his friend Yashmeet Kaur, the present accused, from his rented room.”

iii) During investigation, blood samples, a blood-stained knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence, a torn piece of T-shirt and shirt buttons were recovered from the spot and taken into police possession.

iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it was petitioner-Yashmeet Kaur who herself took the deceased to the hospital after he sustained a stab injury on his chest during the intervening night of 01/02.08.2025, at the rented accommodation allegedly provided by the deceased to the petitioner.

v)

It is further submitted that, in the Rukka/police information regarding the MLC, it has been recorded that patient presented in ER with A/H/O brought dead on 02/08/2025 at 03:30 am. On arrival patient unconscious not responding, pupil fixed and dilated and no sign of life.

vi) The injuries noticed during the post-mortem examination are reproduced as under:

Examination of External injuries
Sr. No.	Injuries	Marked	Injury number
1	One Stab incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm, vertically seen over anterior chest on left side, MID 1/3rd, 8cm Above and Medial to left nipple, upper edge of the wound acute and lower edge seen rounded, on dissection wound seen prenetrating the subcutaneous tissue pectoral muscles and traversing through the 4 and 5 intercostal muscle space, tearing the upper lobe of pleura, lung correspondingly, and piercing through the lung tissue to the corresponding surface of great vessels/aorta incising it near base of heart	No	1
2	Bruise 7x5 cm on outer surface of left elbow, reddish in color	No	2

vii) During investigation, CCTV footage dated 01.08.2025 allegedly revealed that both the accused, namely Vijay @ Sethi and petitioner-Yashmeet Kaur, were together with the deceased-Harish and were moving normally. The footage further shows all three of them together, while certain photographs depict a minor scuffle in the gallery area. The petitioner is allegedly seen pulling co-accused Vijay @ Sethi, which, according to the prosecution, suggests the occurrence of a sudden tussle. The petitioner is also stated to be seen pulling the co-accused towards the door in the CCTV footage.

viii) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the aforesaid portion of the CCTV footage demonstrates that petitioner was, in fact, attempting to restrain co-accused Vijay @ Sethi and thereby deescalate the situation. It is further argued that even from the MLC/police information, it is evident that, in the early hours of 02.08.2025, it was the petitioner who took the deceased, single-handedly, to the hospital in an injured condition. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 14.02.2025.

ix) Let the impression from the CCTV footage be filed in the shape of an affidavit by the Superintendent of Police concerned, describing the actual role played by the petitioner, as submitted by learned counsel for the accused before the learned Trial Court.

x)

List on 09.09.2026.”

“13.

That upon perusal of the CCTV footage, it was found that on 01.08.2025, as per the view of Camera Nos. 02 & 06 covering the main gate and parking area, at 18:56 hours, accused Vijay Kumar @ Sethi (wearing a maroon-coloured T-shirt and blue-coloured pants) and the deceased Harish Kumar (wearing a khaki-coloured shirt and black-coloured pants) are seen entering the building. At 19:00 hours, accused Vijay Kumar @ Sethi is visible going outside to collect goods from a delivery boy and returning inside one minute later. At 19:18 hours, accused Yashmeet Kaur (wearing a grey-coloured T-shirt and checked pyjama) is visible going outside to collect goods, and two minutes thereafter is visible picking up a packet from the guard room and proceeding upstairs. At 20:04 hours, accused Vijay Kumar @ Sethi (wearing a blue-coloured T-shirt and black-coloured shorts) is visible coming to the main gate to hand over an item, and returns inside one minute later.

14.

That on 02.08.2025, as per the view of Camera Nos. 02 & 04 covering the main gate and parking area, at 01:04 hours, the accused persons Yashmeet Kaur and Vijay Kumar@ Sethi, along with the deceased Harish Kumar, are visible going out of the building together. At 01:31 hours, all three are visible re-entering the building, with Vijay @ Sethi carrying a white-coloured polythene bag containing drink bottles. At 03:04 hours, as per the view of Camera No. 06 covering the 4th-floor lobby area, the door of Room No. 403 (the place of occurrence) is visible opening, with all of them quarrelling, the deceased Harish, whose shirt buttons were open, came near the door of the room. During this interval, Yashmeet Kaur is visible knocking on the door of Room No. 407, and Vijay Kumar is also visible coming near the door. After one minute, and again after a further minute, the door of the room closed with all of them inside. At 03:06 hours, the door of the room opened, with Vijay Kumar's hand visible at the door, and a quarrel is seen taking place both inside the room and at the doorway. At 03:08 hours, near the door of the room, Yashmeet Kaur and Vijay Kumar are visible quarrelling, with Vijay Kumar's T-shirt seen being torn. One minute later, the door was closed by Yashmeet, and Vijay Kumar is visible proceeding towards the lift. At 03:09 hours, Yashmeet Kaur is visible standing near the door of the room, gesturing and calling out to Vijay Kumar, who was then standing near the lift, following which she closed the door of the room. At 03:10 hours, as per Camera Nos. 02 & 04 covering the main gate and parking area, Vijay Kumar @ Sethi is visible leaving the building through the main gate. At 03:21 hours, Yashmeet Kaur is visible bringing the injured Harish Kumar out of the room, with bloodstains visible on the clothes of both of them. As per Camera Nos. 02 & 04, at 03:25 hours, the neighbor Sukhdev is visible coming outside to look around, apparently seeking help, and then going back in. At 03:27 hours, Yashmeet Kaur and Sukhdev are visible carrying the injured Harish outside. At 03:30 hours, Sukhdev is visible with his vehicle parked near the gate, and at 03:35 hours, with the assistance of a passer-by, Yashmeet Kaur and Sukhdev are visible placing the injured Harish inside the vehicle.

15.

That on a conjoint reading of the above timeline, it emerges that the altercation and the infliction of the stab injury inside Room No. 403 occurred at or around 03:04-03:09 hours, with co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Sethi having left the premises by 03:10 hours. The injured Harish Kumar was, however, not brought out of a gap of the room until 03:21 hours, approximately twelve minutes during which the petitioner remained alone with the injured man behind a closed door. Thereafter, assistance was sought only informally and belatedly. The neighbor Sukhdev was drawn in only at 03:25 hours, and the injured was finally placed in a vehicle with the aid of an unidentified passer-by only at 03:35 hours, upward of half an hour after the injury appears to have been sustained. At no stage in this sequence does the petitioner appear to have summoned an ambulance, alerted the police control room, or informed the family members of the deceased. The record instead reflects reliance on an ad hoc neighbor and an unidentified passer-by to arrange transport to hospital. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that she had promptly and diligently extended medical assistance to the deceased is baseless. The CCTV timeline instead points to an avoidable and unexplained delay in securing timely, professional emergency care for a person who had sustained a stab wound.”