Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET01-000131-2012
SC No:- 323/2016
FIR No : 144/2012
Police Station : Mandawali
Under Section (s) : 307/34 IPC
In the Sessions case of:-
State
versus
1. Deepak
(Proceedings abated vide order dated 15.02.2023)
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Sharma @ Ramesh
R/o A-393, Dwyer Gali Mandawali, Delhi.
2. Mohd. Ishaq
S/o Sh. Md. Yusuf @ Yunus
R/o A-392, Dwyer Gali, Mandawali, Delhi.
3. Afaq @ Sheru
S/o Sh. Yusuf
R/o A-392, Dwyer Gali, Mandawali, Delhi.
4. Akhlaq
S/o Sh. Mohd. Yusuf @ Yunus
R/o A-392, Dwyer Gali, Mandawali, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 03.08.2012
Date of reserving Order : 10.03.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:03 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 1 of 32
Final Judgment : Convicted
Appearances :-
For the State : Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld.
Addl. PP.
For all the accused persons : Sumit Kumar Khatri,
Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, accused persons namely, Deepak,
Mohd. Ishaq, Afaq @ Sheru and Ahklaq were sent up for trial on
the basis of report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) with allegations
that on 03.04.2012 at about 09:00 PM in a Gali at Durga Marg,
Near Mohammadi Masjid, Mandawali, Delhi, the accused persons
caused injury on the person of complainant Rajan by a knife /
broken bottle of glass with the intention to kill him.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on
03.04.2012, an information was received at about 9:55 PM at
Police Station Mandawali regarding a person having been stabbed
near Masjid, Park Mandawali which was recorded vide DD no. 43-
A by HC Bhagwat Singh who had further intimated ASI Harphool
for information and necessary action. Thereafter, ASI Harphool
along with Ct. Rajender reached at Durga Gali, Mohammadi
Masjid in the area of Mandawali where he noticed that blood was
lying at the spot and found that injured had been taken to LBS
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:09 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 2 of 32
hospital. Thereafter, Beat Ct. Lokesh remained at the spot and SI
Harphool along with Ct. Rajender reached at LBS hospital, where
MLC No. 5965/2012 of injured Rajan was collected. Injured Rajan
was found unfit for statement. SI Harphool Singh made
endorsement on DD no. 43-A and prepared a rukka and handed
over the same to Ct. Rajender for registration of FIR. Thereafter,
investigation of the present case was marked to SI Vijay who
reached at LBS Hospital with DD no. 43-A. Thereafter, Duty Ct.
Om Jeet at LBS hospital handed over the sealed pullanda
containing blood stained clothes of injured Rajan and IO went to
the spot i.e. in front of house no. 393, Durga Gali, Mandawali,
Delhi where the crime team was already present and inspected the
spot. Victim Rajan was referred to Safdarjang Hospital for further
treatment and SI Vijay along with Ct. went to Safdarjang Hospital
and recorded his statement. One eye-witness Radha who was sister
of victim met IO at Safdarjang Hospital and she accompanied him
to the spot where IO prepared site plan at her instance. IO recorded
the statement of Radha under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, on 04.04.2012, accused Deepak was
apprehended and arrested from his house. He further got recovered
the blood-stained knife from his house, which was duly seized by
the IO. Thereafter, on 04.06.2012 accused Mohd. Ishaq was
arrested from Mohammddi Majid Chowk and other remaining
accused persons namely, Mohd. Akhlaq and Mohd. Afaq @ Sheru
were arrested on 27.06.2012. After completion of the
investigation, IO/SI Vijay prepared the charge-sheet in the present
case and filed the same before the Court. Thereafter, during further
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:15 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 3 of 32
investigation, IO collected the FSL report and submitted the
supplementary charge-sheet before the court.
4. Charge-sheet for the offence under Section 307/34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘) was
filed against the accused persons namely Deepak, Mohd. Ishaq,
Afaq @ Sheru and Akhlaq before the Court of Ld. MM on
03.07.2012. After statutory compliance under Section 207 IPC,
present case was committed to the Court of Sessions and assigned
to this Court vide order dated 03.08.2012 passed by Ld. District &
Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Charge
5. Vide order dated 16.08.2013, accused Deepak, Mohd.
Ishaq, Afaq @ Sheru and Akhlaq were formally charged for
commission of offences under Sections 307/34 IPC.
6. It is relevant to note that during proceedings of the
case, accused Deepak had died on 19.10.2022 consequent to which
proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 15.02.2023.
Prosecution Evidence
7. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as
many as 18 witnesses. For the sake of convenience, I have
categorized those witnesses in following 03 categories:-
Public Witnesses
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.03.28
17:39:20 +0530FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 4 of 32
8. PW-2 injured Rajan and PW-3 Radha are the star
witnesses of prosecution and their testimonies would be discussed
in detail at later stage.
Police Witnesses
9. PW-1 HC Bhagwat Singh is the duty officer. He
deposed that on 03.04.2012, he was on duty at Police Station
Mandawali from 4:00 Pm to 12:00 midnight. He deposed that he
received an information at about 9:55 PM at Police Station
regarding a person having been stabbed near Masjid, Park
Mandawali. He recorded the said information vide DD no. 43 and
further intimated to ASI Harphool about the said information for
necessary action. PW-1 proved the DD no. 43 as Ex.PW1/A.
10. PW-6 is HC Pramod Kumar who deposed that on
04.04.2012 he was on duty between 12:00 midnight till 8:00 AM
as a duty officer. At about 12:10 AM, he received a rukka sent by
Ct. Harphool through Ct. Rajender on the basis of which he got
recorded the present FIR. PW-6 proved the print out of the FIR as
Ex.PW6/A and endorsement on the same as Ex.PW6/B.
11. PW-7 is Ct. Omjeet. He deposed that he was posted as
a duty constable at LBS Hospital. A person namely Rajan was
admitted in the hospital in injured condition at about 10:00 PM and
doctor handed over a sealed pullanda bearing seal of
LBSHOSPKP containing the blood stained clothes of the injured
along with sample seal, which were handed over by him to IO/SI
Vijay and were seized. PW-7 proved the seizure memo of the same
as Ex.PW7/A.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:25 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 5 of 32
12. PW-8 is SI Jai Singh who deposed that on the
intervening night of 03-04.04.2012, he was posted at District
Crime Team East District, Delhi as SI and received the information
from Control Room to reach at A-393, Mandawali, Delhi. He
being Incharge along with Ct. Manoj Photographer and Ct.
Narender reached there where HC Rakesh along with staff met
him. Ct. Manoj had clicked the photographs of the spot from
different angles and prepared the SOC report at the spot which
were handed over to HC Rakesh. PW-8 proved the SOC report as
Ex.PW8/A.
13. PW-9 is Ct. Manoj who deposed that on the
intervening night of 03-04.04.2012, he was posted at Mobile
Crime Team, East District Delhi as constable Photographer and on
that day, he along with SI Jai Singh reached at A-393, Mandawali,
Delhi where he clicked five photographs of the spot from different
angles and after developing the same, these were received from the
Photo Section by the IO concerned. PW-9 proved the said
photographs as Ex.PW9/1 to 5 and negatives of the same as
Ex.PW9/6 to 10 (colly).
14. PW-10 is Ct. Lokesh Kumar who deposed that on
03.04.2012, he was posted in Police Station Mandawali as beat
Constable at A & B Block Mandawali and was on patrolling at
about 11:00 PM when he heard noise of quarrel and reached at the
spot. ASI Harphool was present there and blood was lying there on
the spot. The injured had already been shifted to LBS hospital and
he was directed to remain at the spot and IO had gone to the
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:30 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 6 of 32
hospital. After sometime, IO came at the spot from the hospital
and crime team was called which inspected the scene of crime.
15. PW-10 deposed that on the next day i.e. 04.04.2012,
one secret informer had informed him that one Ishaq was also
involved in the incident of this case and he would come from
Budha Marg, Mandawali. At about 9.00 p.m., one person was seen
coming and on pointing out by the secret informer, he was
apprehended by him. PW-10 deposed that accused was then taken
to Police Station and was produced to the IO. PW-10 could not
identify the accused Mohd. Ishaq at first instance but later on
correctly identified him during cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP
for the State.
16. PW-10 further deposed during cross-examination that
accused Ishaq was produced by him in the Police Station and he
was arrested by SI Vijay Kumar after interrogation and personally
searched. PW-10 proved the arrest memo as Ex.PW10/A and
personal search memo as Ex.PW10/B. PW-10 further deposed that
Ishaq S/o Mohd. Yusuf R/o A-392, Durga Gali Mandawali, Delhi
led the IO alongwith him at house no. A-393, Durga Gali
Mandawali where he pointed out towards the road in front of the
said house and told the IO that he alongwith his co-accused
persons Sheru @ Afaq, Akhlaq and Deepak had assaulted one
Rajan with knife and injured him. Pointing out memo was
prepared by the IO and PW-10 proved the same as Ex.PW10/C.
17. PW-10 deposed that the disclosure statement of
accused Ishaq was recorded vide memo Ex.PW10/D and the age
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:34 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 7 of 32
memo of accused Ishaq was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW10/E.
PW-10 denied the suggestion regarding intentionally identifying
the accused Akhlaq as Ishaq to favour the accused persons. He
deposed that said error was committed due to lapse of time.
18. PW-11 is Ct. Rajender who deposed that on
03.04.2012, he was posted at Police Station Mandawali and was on
night emergency duty. He deposed that DD no.43-A was marked to
ASI Harphool at about 10:00 PM for necessary action and he along
with him reached at the spot i.e. Durga Mandir near Mohammadi
Masjid, Mandawali. After seeing the spot, he noticed that in the
gali, blood was lying at the spot and on inquiry conducted by IO, it
was revealed that the injured had been shifted to LBS Hospital. He
alongwith IO reached at LBS Hospital where the MLC of injured
Rajan was received by the IO who was declared unfit for statement
by the doctor concerned. No eye witness was present in the
hospital. Tehrir was prepared by ASI Harphool after making
endorsement on DD no.43-A which was given to him for
registration of the case. PW-11 deposed that he got the case
registered and after receiving the copy of FIR and the original
tehrir, he reached at the spot where the same was handed over to SI
Vijay at about 1.00 AM on 04.04.2012. Blood sample was lifted
by the IO from the spot which was kept in a plastic vial and
converted into a cloth parcel with the help of a white cloth, sealed
with the seal of ‘VK’ and the earth was also kept in a separate
plastic vial which was also converted into cloth parcel with the
help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of ‘VK’. PW-11 proved
the seizure memo of the same vide Ex.PW11/A.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:39 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 8 of 32
19. Thereafter, PW-11 alongwith SI Vijay reached at
Safdarjung Hospital where statement of Rajan was recorded and
they came back to house no. 330, Gali no.5, B Block Mandawali
where Radha, sister of Rajan met them. IO had prepared the site
plan at the instance of Radha. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Vijay
reached at house no.393, near Durga Marg, Mandawali from
where accused Deepak was arrested and personally searched.
PW-11 proved the arrest memo of accused Deepak as Ex.PW11/B
and personal search memo as Ex.PW11/B-1. Disclosure statement
of accused Deepak was also recorded vide Ex.PW11/B-2. PW-11
deposed that accused Deepak got recovered one knife from
underneath a bed from one room and IO had prepared its sketch
after its measurement and proved the sketch memo of knife as
Ex.PW11/C. PW-11 deposed that thereafter, the knife was kept in a
cloth, pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of ‘VK’ and
taken into possession vide pointing out/seizure memo
Ex.PW11/D. Thereafter, they reached Police Station Mandawali
with accused Deepak and from Police Station they reached at LBS
Hospital where accused was medically examined and then brought
to Police Station and locked up at Police Station Kalyanpuri. Later
on, statement of accused was recorded by the IO. PW-11 correctly
identified the case property i.e. knife as Ex.P1, earth control as
Ex.P2, blood stained earth as Ex.P3 and blood sample in gauze
cloth piece as Ex.P4.
20. PW-12 is HC Surender Singh who deposed that on
04.04.2012, he was posted as Constable in Police Station
Mandawali and on that day, on the directions of IO, he took victim
Rajan to LBS Hospital for getting his blood sample and after
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:43 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 9 of 32
obtaining the blood sample, the doctor kept the same in a plastic
container and prepared a pullanda which was sealed with the seal
of LBS Hospital. PW-12 deposed that he then came at the Police
Station and handed over the blood sample and the sample seal to
the IO which was seized. PW-12 proved the seizure memo as
Ex.PW12/A.
21. PW-13 is HC Yogesh who deposed that on
04.04.2012, he was posted at Police Station Mandawali as Head
Constable and was working as MHCM. On that day SI Vijay came
to Malkhana and handed over him four sealed pullandas out of
which three were sealed with the seal of ‘VK’ and one was sealed
with the seal of ‘LBS HOSPKP’ and they were deposited by him in
malkhana property. PW-13 proved the relevant entry in register
no.19 at Serial no. 96. He proved the same vide Ex.PW13/A. On
07.06.2012, SI Vijay again came to malkhana and handed over him
one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of ‘LBS HOSPKP’ which
was deposited by him in malkhana property at serial no. 157. He
proved the said relevant entry as Ex.PW13/B.
22. On 15.06.2012, on the directions of IO, PW-13
handed over five sealed parcels to Ct. Mahesh vide RC no.
64/21/12 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini who deposited the
same at FSL Rohini and thereafter handed him the receipt in this
regard. PW-13 proved the said RC as Ex.PW13/C and copy of
receipt as Ex.PW13/D.
23. PW-14 is SI Harphool Singh who deposed that on
03.04.2012, he was informed about DD no. 43A telephonically by
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:48 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 10 of 32
the duty officer. He reached at spot and noticed blood there.
Thereafter, he along with Ct. Rajender reached at LBS Hospital
and received the MLC of injured Rajan who was unfit for
statement as per the doctor concerned. He made endorsement as
Ex.PW14/A on DD no. 43-A Ex.PW14/B. He prepared rukka and
got the case registered through Ct. Rajender. Further investigation
of this case was marked to SI Vijay.
24. PW-15 is Ct. Mahesh who deposed that he was posted
at Police Station Mandawali and on that day, he deposited sealed
exhibits at FSL and obtained the received copy of RC and
acknowledgment. He deposed that on return to Police Station
Mandawali, he handed over the received copy of RC and
acknowledgment to MHC(M). He further deposed that sealed
exhibits remained intact till it remained in his possession.
25. PW-16 is HC Krishan Kumar who deposed that on
27.06.2012 he was posted at Police Station Mandawali as
Constable and on that day, he alongwith SI Vijay Kumar reached at
Karkardooma Court where accused Akhlaq and accused Afaq @
Sheru had surrendered themselves before the concerned court.
PW-16 deposed that after taking permission for interrogation of
both the accused persons, both the accused persons were
interrogated by the IO and were arrested in the present case.
PW-16 proved the arrest memo of accused Akhlaq as Ex.PW16/A
and arrest memo of accused Afaq @ Sheru as Ex. PW16/B. He
further deposed that IO interrogated both the accused persons and
recorded their disclosure statements as Ex.PW16/C and
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:39:56 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 11 of 32
Ex.PW16/D respectively. PW-16 correctly identified both accused
Akhlaq and Afaq @ Sheru before the court.
26. PW-17 is IO/SI Vijay Kumar who deposed that on
03.04.2012, he was posted as SI at Police Station Mandawali and
on that day on receipt of DD No. 43-A, ASI Harphool Singh went
to the spot. PW-17 was asked to reach at hospital with DD No. 43-
A. Accordingly, at the instance of SHO, he went to hospital with
DD No. 43-A where victim Rajan was found admitted vide MLC
No. 3479/12 and was unfit for statement. PW-17 deposed that ASI
Harphool Singh made endorsement on DD No. 43-A and prepared
rukka Ex.PW14/A and case was marked to him for further
investigation.
27. PW-17 deposed that duty Ct. Om Jeet at LBS Hospital
handed over one sealed pulanda sealed with seal of ‘LBS HOSP
KP’ containing blood stained clothes of injured Rajan and he took
the same into possession and prepared seizure memo of sealed
pulanda. Thereafter, he along with ASI Harphool went to spot i.e.
in front of House no. 393, Durga Gali, Mandawali, Delhi where the
crime team was already present which inspected the spot. At the
spot blood was spilled on the ground. He lifted earth control and
blood stained earth control from the spot and kept the same into
two separate plastic boxes and same were kept into plain white
colour cloth and thereafter, the same were converted into pullanda
which was sealed with the seal of ‘VK’. PW-17 deposed that he
prepared the seizure memo of blood stained control and earth
control vide Ex.PW11/A. Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2025.03.28
17:40:02
+0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 12 of 32
28. PW-17 further deposed that the victim was referred to
Safdarjang Hospital for further treatment and he along with the
constable went to the Safdarjang Hospital where he recorded the
statement of injured Rajan u/s 161 Cr.PC. One eye-witness
namely, Radha i.e. sister of Rajan also met there who
accompanied them to the spot and at her instance, PW-17 prepared
site plan and recorded her statement. PW-17 proved the site plan
as Ex.PW17/A. PW-17 deposed that he searched for the accused
persons and on 04.04.2012 accused Deepak was arrested from the
house. His personal search was conducted and PW-17 recorded his
disclosure statement. Accused Deepak led them to his house i.e.
A-393, Durga Gali, Mandawali, Delhi where he took out one blood
stained knife / khanjjar under the bed from the room of the house.
PW-17 deposed that he prepared the sketch of knife on plain white
paper and measured its dimensions. He kept the knife in a white
colour cloth and cloth was converted into pullanda and pullanda
was sealed with the seal of ‘VK’. He thereafter, prepared the
pointing out and seizure memo of knife vide Ex.PW11/D. He also
prepared site plan of place of recovery vide Ex.PW17/B.
Thereafter, accused was produced before the court where he was
remanded to JC.
29. PW-17 thereafter deposed on the lines of testimony of
PW-10 Ct. Lokesh and PW-16 HC Krishan Kumar regarding arrest
of accused Mohd. Ishaq on 04.06.2012 and arrest of accused
Mohd. Akhlaq, Mohd. Afaq @ Sheru on 27.06.2012. PW-17
correctly identified all the accused persons in the court.
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.03.28
17:40:08 +0530FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 13 of 32
30. PW-17 thereafter, deposed that on 07.06.2012, the
injured had come to LBS hospital where his blood sample was
collected by the doctor which was handed over to him by Ct.
Surender in sealed condition with the seal of LBS HOSP KP and
sample seal. He took the same into possession vide seizure memo
Ex.PW12/A. PW-17 deposed that he had sent the exhibits to FSL
Rohini through Ct. Mahesh Kumar and recorded the statement of
Ct. Mahesh Kumar and MHCM. He also collected DD No. 42-A,
DD No. 44-A, DD No. 3-A marked as Mark-X, Mark-Y and
Mark-2 respectively and also collected the PCR form dated
03.04.2012 which was marked as Mark Z1. PW-17 deposed that
after completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and
after getting approval from the competent authority, he filed the
same before the court. PW-17 correctly identified the case property
i.e. knife which was got recovered from the accused Deepak vide
Ex.P1.
Expert witnesses
31. PW-4 is Dr. Banarasi, CMO LBS Hospital who
deposed that on 03.04.2012, he was posted as above and on that
day at 10.05 pm, one injured Rajan S/o Ram Charit was brought in
the hospital by his brother namely, Hemant with alleged history of
assault. PW-4 further deposed that patient was conscious but not
well oriented and smell of alcohol was present in his breath. He
medically examined him and found following injures:-
(i) Incised wound left forearm of size 5×1 cm on lateral aspect.
(ii) Three incised wound on left thigh and gluteal region on lateral aspect
of size 3cmx1cm, 1cmx1 cm and 1cmx1cm.
(iii) Incised wound on upper back mid line of size 3cmx 1cm.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:40:13 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 14 of 32
(iv) Incised wound on middle of back in mid line of size 2cm x 1 cm.
32. PW-4 deposed that at the time of examination, patient
was unfit for giving statement and after giving first aid, patient was
referred to Sr. Resident Surgery. He prepared his detailed MLC as
Ex.PW4/A. PW-4 deposed that the opinion regarding the nature of
injury was kept under observation, however, the nature of kind of
weapon used was sharp. PW-4 deposed that one green T-shirt and
blue jeans having blood was sealed and handed over to the duty
constable.
33. PW-5 is Dr. Sachin Gupta who deposed that on
07.06.2012, he was posted as Casualty Medical Officer at LBS
Hospital, Delhi and he had examined patient Rajan S/o Sh. Ram
Chritra, who was brought by Ct. Surinder for medical
examination. PW-5 deposed that on general examination, no
external injuries were observed by him on his person. He had also
taken blood sample of the patient on the request of IO after
obtaining willingness of the patient. PW-5 deposed that he had
prepared the MLC No.5965/12 of the patient Rajan and proved the
same as Ex.PW5/A. He deposed that blood sample was sealed with
the seal of hospital and handed over to the IO along with sample
seal.
34. PW-18 is Dr. Imrana, Senior Scientific Officer
(Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi who deposed that on 15.06.2012,
five sealed parcels related to the present case were received in their
office. The seals of the parcels were intact and tallied with the
specimen. PW-18 deposed that the exhibits were assigned to her
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:40:18 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 15 of 32
for analysis and on examination, she detected blood on all the
exhibits. PW-18 deposed that she prepared her report bearing no.
2012B-4376 and Bio No. 725/12 dated 26.11.2012 and proved
the same as Ex.PW18/A. Report regarding Bio division was
proved vide Ex.PW18/B.
35. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons.
Statement of Accused person(s)
36. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused
persons namely, Mohd. Ishaq, Mohd. Afaq and Mohd Akhlaq were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating evidence
appeared against them during trial were put to them. Accused
persons though denied the said evidence and stated that they were
family friends of accused Deepak (now deceased) and
complainant Rajan being neighbours. Rajan used to consume
alcohol and in drunken condition used to tease sister of Deepak,
which resulted in their rivalry. They further stated that as they were
friends of accused Deepak, they got falsely implicated by the
complainant. Matter thereafter, proceeded for recording of defence
evidence.
Defence evidence
37. In support of their case, accused persons examined
two witnesses i.e. DW-1 Jahid and DW-2 Mohd Usman.
38. DW-1 Jahid deposed that earlier, he was residing in
Durga Gali, Mandawali, Fazal Pur and the incident took place at a
distance of about two houses away from his house i.e. at the
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28 17:40:22
+0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 16 of 32
distance of about 100 yards. He deposed that after hearing the
noise of quarrel, he came out and saw that a quarrel was going on
between Rajan and Deepak and he came to know from mother of
accused Deepak that the said quarrel took place as Rajan had
caught hold of hand of sister of Deepak. DW-1 deposed that
accused persons namely Mohd. Ishaq, Afaq and Akhlaq were also
present at the time of incident at the spot and they were standing
there like him (DW-1). He further deposed that Rajan was not a
good person and the aforesaid three accused persons were not
quarreling at that time and were falsely implicated by the police.
39. DW-2 Mohd. Usman deposd that he had been residing
in the area of Mandawali since 2009 and about 11 years back,
during summers, he was present in A-Block, gali no. 7, Mandawali
when a quarrel was going on between Deepak and his neighbour
whose name he did not know. He deposed that when he reached
there, the quarrel had already started and the accused persons were
trying to stop the quarrel and were not involved in the same.
40. Both these witnesses were duly cross-examined by
Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Final Arguments on behalf of Both Sides
41. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that it has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons
along with co-accused Deepak (since deceased) had attempted to
cause death of victim Rajan on 03.04.2012 by giving him multiple
blows with knife and broken bottle of glass on vital parts of his
body. It is argued that both the eye-witnesses i.e. injured
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:40:27 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 17 of 32
Rajan/PW-2 and his sister Radha/PW-3 have supported the case of
prosecution and withstood the test of cross-examination conducted
by Ld. Counsels for accused persons, leaving no room for doubt in
establishing the guilt of all accused persons. It is argued that the
MLC of injured Rajan further corroborates the factum of injuries
received by him and the other material on record regarding arrest
and recoveries against the accused persons stand duly proved by
the testimonies of remaining prosecution witnesses. It is thus,
prayed that all the accused persons be convicted for offence
punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and be suitably punished.
42. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsels for all the
accused persons that testimonies of both PW-2 Rajan and PW-3
Radha suffer from material contradictions in as much as PW-2
Rajan claimed that his neck was twisted by accused Ishaq,
however, PW-3 Radha stated that the neck of her brother Rajan
was held by accused Akhlaq. While PW-2 mentioned in his
testimony that accused Deepak caused knife injuries on his body,
PW-3 Radha stated that in addition to knife injuries caused by
accused Deepak, brother of accused Akhlaq also inflicted injuries
to her brother Rajan with one broken glass bottle. It is argued that
PW-3 Radha made several improvements in her testimony as she
earlier stated that on 03.04.2012 at about 9:00 PM, she saw her
brother Rajan talking with one boy Ravi in the street in front of
house of her parents, however, during the cross-examination, she
stated that she could not say if any person namely Ravi was
standing with her brother on the day of incident. Furthermore,
PW-3 Radha mentioned in her examination in chief that at the time
of commission of alleged incident, she along with her mother and
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:40:31 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 18 of 32
father were present on the roof of their house when she heard a
noise and went down towards the place of incident, however,
during cross-examination, she stated that when she was present on
the roof/ balcony of her house at the time of hearing noise, there
was no one else in the balcony at that time. It is argued by Ld.
Counsels for accused persons that at the time of commission of
alleged incident, it was night time and admittedly, there was no
electricity, as such, the injured Rajan could not have clearly seen as
to who had caused injuries to him. It is further argued that there are
several chinks in the investigation carried by the police as the
friend of injured Rajan namely, Ravi who was reportedly present at
the time of incident in question (as per the version of both injured
PW-2 Rajan and PW-3 Radha), was not examined by police during
investigation casting cloud of doubt on prosecution version. It is
argued that testimony of PW-3 Radha lacks credibility and glass
bottle with which victim allegedly suffered injuries was never
seized. It is finally argued that the accused persons were merely
standing at the spot of incident on the relevant date and time and
were falsely implicated by the injured owing to some
misunderstanding and confusion.
Analysis and Findings
43. In order to bring home the guilt of accused,
testimonies of eye-witnesses i.e. injured/ PW-2 Rajan and his sister
i.e. PW-3 Radha are vital. The testimonies of these witnesses are
being discussed herein for better appreciation of evidence.
44. PW-2 is injured Rajan @ Pawan who deposed that on
03.04.2012, when he was at his home at about 09.00 PM, his friend
AKASH Digitally
AKASH JAIN
signed by
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:40:36 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 19 of 32
Ravi came to his house to call him. They were talking outside his
house in the lane and accused Deepak who was living in
neighbourhood asked them, why they were making noise. PW-2
deposed that he told him, ” apne kaam se kaam rakho”.
Consequently, accused Deepak raised his hand and PW-2 asked
him to put it down. Thereafter, accused persons Akhlaq, Afaq @
Sheru and Ishaq who were with accused Deepak, started beating
him. Accused Ishaq turned his neck and accused Deepak brought a
knife and caused many injuries on his body due to which he fell
down and regained consciousness at LBS hospital from where he
was referred to Safdarganj Hospital. PW-2 correctly identified all
the accused persons before the court.
45. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsels for
accused persons, PW-2 stated that he had no previous enmity with
three accused persons i.e. accused Mohd. Ishaq, Afaq and Akhlaq,
however, he had a minor quarrel with co-accused Deepak earlier.
PW-2 further stated that he immediately turned unconscious after
receiving injuries and could not tell as to whether the accused
persons took him to the police. PW-2 further stated that the
distance of spot of incident from his house was about 50 steps and
prior to incident in question, he was talking to his friend Ravi
outside his house. PW-2 denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for
accused Deepak that he had attacked Deepak with a knife under
the influence of liquor.
46. PW-3 is Smt. Radha i.e. sister of victim Rajan. She
deposed that on 03.04.2012 at about 9:00 pm, when she was
present in the street in front of house of her parents, she saw her
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:40:41 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 20 of 32
brother Rajan talking with one boy namely Ravi. At that time the
electric supply was switched off hence, she alongwith her mother
and father went on the roof of house of her parents. PW-3 deposed
that she heard a noise and immediately, she peeped down and
found many persons present there. She immediately came down
and saw that accused Akhlaq was holding the neck of her brother
Rajan and brother of accused Akhlaq was having one broken glass
bottle in his hand and he was inflicting injuries with bottle to her
brother. She further deposed that accused Deepak inflicted knife
injury to her brother Rajan and one other brother of accused
Akhlaq was also present at the spot at the time of incident.
47. PW-3 deposed that she did not remember the name of
all four accused persons but accused Deepak and Akhlaq were
present there. She correctly identified all the accused persons and
deposed that on seeing this incident, she cried and all the four
accused persons were saying “Jan Se Mar Do Sale Ko” . When her
parents reached at the spot then all the four accused persons flew
away leaving her brother Rajan at the spot in injured condition.
PW-3 further deposed that she made a call on 100 number and
waited for police to arrive at the spot. But, when police did not
reach at the spot, they took her brother to LBS Hospital in a TSR as
he was bleeding. After giving some primary treatment at LBS
Hospital, her brother was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. PW-3
deposed that police met her and recorded her statement after
making inquiries from her regrading the incident. PW-3 further
deposed that she had pointed out the place of incident on which the
police prepared the site plan. Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.03.28
17:40:46 +0530FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 21 of 32
48. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsels for
accused persons, PW-3 stated that prior to the incident, she had not
seen victim Rajan talking to Ravi. She further stated that while she
was present in her balcony and heard the noise, she directly came
down and there was no one else in the balcony at that time. She
further stated that she had seen the incident from a distance of
about 15 feet and the light was off at that time and it was dark. She
further stated that she did not know the names of the accused
persons and came to know their names when she started coming to
the court for evidence. She further stated that police did not come
at the spot in her presence and her statement was recorded by the
police on the same day in the hospital. PW-3 conceded that she
could not see any quarrel when she looked down from upstairs.
She further denied the suggestion that she did not see the incident
in question or that the accused persons were falsely implicated by
her.
49. It is well settled that while appreciating evidence of
an eye-witness to the incident, the court must not attach undue
importance to minor discrepancies but must consider broad
spectrum of the prosecution version as in most of the times, the
evidence of the witness is recorded after considerable period of
time resulting in fading of memory and inability of witness to
recall each and every minute details of the incident. At the same
time, it is also trite to say that the evidence given by an interested
witness or a relative of victim must be scrutinized carefully to
guard against possibility of bias, malice or even emotion.
50. In the present case, testimony of PW-3 Radha (who is
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:40:51 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 22 of 32
also sister of victim Rajan and cited as alleged eye-witness to the
incident in question by the prosecution) does not appear to be
credible on several counts. Firstly, the witness had named all the
four assailants in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
before the police, however, during recording of her examination-
in-chief before the court she only named two assailants i.e. accused
Deepak and accused Akhlaq and claimed that she came to know
the names of the assailants at later stages when she started coming
to the court for evidence. Secondly, PW-3 mentioned in her
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in her examination-
in-chief that she saw her brother i.e. victim Rajan talking to his
friend Ravi outside their house on the relevant date and time prior
to commission of alleged incident in question, however, during
cross-examination she resiled from her statement and stated that
she could not say if Ravi was standing with her brother outside
their house on the date of incident. Thirdly, during her
examination-in-chief, witness stated that at the time of incident,
electricity supply was switched off and she along with her mother
and father were present on the roof of her house when she heard a
noise and immediately peeped down and found many persons were
present there. However, during cross-examination, she again took
a U-turn and stated that at the time of alleged incident, when she
was standing on balcony of her house, there was no one else in the
balcony at that time. Fourthly, during recording of her testimony,
PW-3 made improvements in her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and claimed that at the time of commission of
alleged incident, all the four accused persons were threatening to
kill victim Rajan, while no such allegation was made by victim
Rajan himself in his entire statement. Fifthly, there are material
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28 17:40:55
+0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 23 of 32
contradictions in the testimony of victim PW-2 Rajan and PW-3
Radha as victim stated in his testimony that during commission of
alleged incident, his neck was twisted by accused Ishaq, however,
PW-3 Radha deposed that the neck of her brother Rajan was held
by accused Akhlaq. Similarly, PW-3 Radha mentioned in her
statement that in addition to knife injuries caused by accused
Deepak to victim Rajan, brother of accused Akhlaq also inflicted
injuries to the victim with a broken glass bottle, which fact is in
clear contradiction to the statement of PW-2 victim Rajan who did
not make any mention of injuries caused to him by a broken glass
bottle by brother of accused Akhlaq in his entire statement. No
such glass bottle was further seized by the IO during investigation.
Sixthly, on specific query put to the witness by Ld. Counsel for
accused persons, she claimed that victim Rajan had never taken
liquor in her presence and was not under the influence of liquor on
the day of incident, while his MLC clearly reflects that he was
under the influence of alcohol at the time of preparation of MLC.
51. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the
accused persons, PW-3 Radha clearly admitted that she could not
see any quarrel when she looked down from roof / balcony of her
house and that at the time of commission of alleged incident, there
was no electricity and lights were off and it was dark at that time.
As per the testimony of victim Rajan, the distance of spot from his
house is about 50 steps. It is thus, highly unlikely that PW-3 Radha
had witnessed the entire incident as claimed by her and her
testimony cannot be relied upon being marred with several
inconsistencies, improvements and contradictions.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:41:00 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 24 of 32
52. Testimony of injured Rajan though stands on
completely different pedestal. The injured has categorically
deposed that on the relevant date and time of incident, all the three
accused persons in furtherance of their common intention along
with co-accused Deepak had beaten him. The witness
painstakingly narrated the entire incident, wherein accused Ishaq
twisted his neck, while accused Deepak brought a knife and caused
various injuries on his body with the said knife. Nothing
substantial could be culled out from his cross-examination which
could discredit his testimony.
53. It is well settled that for appreciating the evidence of a
victim, his presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be
doubted. Being the victim, he would be must keen to ensure that
the real culprit does not go scot free and there is no reason that he
would frame any innocent person in such a serious offence,
completely knowing its implications without any previous enmity
with him.
54. In the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased
to observe that:-
“…. 28. The question of the weight to be attached to the
evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the
course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed
by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has
himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such
a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he
is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his
presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare
his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate
someone….”
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.03.28
17:41:07 +0530FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 25 of 32
55. In the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009)
9 SCC 719, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the special
evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness
and while relying on its earlier judgments held as following:-
“…. 19. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He
had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not
be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the
incident as he was present at the time when the assailants
reached the tubewell.
20. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka,
1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that the
deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon
unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene
stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the
injury during the said incident.
21. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a
similar view has been reiterated observing that the
testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and
efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the
time and place of occurrence, lends support to his
testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In
case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-
examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his
testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State
of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459). Thus, we are of the
considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW4)
has rightly been relied upon by the courts below….”
56. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal propositions, it can
be thus, concluded that testimony of an injured witness stands on a
higher pedestal than any other witness, in as much as he sustained
injuries in the incident and his presence at the scene of crime
cannot be doubted and such witness would not want to let his
actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third
person for commission of such offence. AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:41:12 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 26 of 32
57. The presence of victim and all the three accused
persons at the spot of incident on the relevant date and time is not
disputed during the entire trial by the accused persons themselves.
The only defence taken by the accused persons is that they were
merely standing at the spot while a quarrel was going on between
the victim and accused Deepak as a result of which victim as well
as accused Deepak and some of his family members received
injuries. Nothing substantial though, could be brought on record
on behalf of the accused persons to show injuries received by co-
accused Deepak or his family members in the alleged incident. On
the contrary, ocular testimony of injured Rajan is duly
corroborated with his MLC Ex.PW4/A wherein he received
several incised wounds on his left thigh, left forearm and back. It is
specifically brought on record that there was no previous enmity
between victim Rajan and all the three accused persons, as such,
there was no occasion for victim to falsely implicate all these
accused persons.
58. Mere fact that the police failed to examine friend of
injured namely Ravi or join any independent public witness during
investigation would not be fatal to the case of prosecution in as
much as the injured has categorically deposed against all the three
accused persons in his testimony. Moreover, in terms of ratio of
various judgments discussed above, testimony of victim stands on
much higher pedestal. Section 134 of Evidence Act mandates that
no particular number of witnesses are required in a case for proof
of any fact. It is the quality and not quantity of evidence which
matters. It is further well settled that “Evidence has to be weighed
not counted”. Thus, it stands duly proved beyond reasonable doubt
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:41:16 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 27 of 32
that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common
intention along with co-accused Deepak caused injuries to victim
Rajan as a result of which, he received several incised wounds on
his body on 03.04.2012 at about 09:00 PM at Gali, Durga Marg,
Near Mohammadi Masjid, Mandawali, Delhi.
59. The next question which arises for consideration is as
to whether the act of accused causing injuries on the person of
injured, attracts the ingredients of offence under Section 307 IPC.
In order to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is to be
proved that the act was committed by the accused with such
intention or knowledge that if the accused, by that act had caused
death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide amounting
to murder. The intention or knowledge on the part of the accused is
to be deduced from the circumstances in which injuries had been
caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of the body
where such injuries were suffered.
60. In the case of Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, 2015 AIR
SCW 910, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had observed that:-
“…. 12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307
IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to
commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused. The
burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted
to commit the murder of the prosecution witness.
Whether the accused person intended to commit murder
of another person would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under
Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury
capable of causing death should have been caused.
Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of
assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of
the accused, such intention may also be adduced from
other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be
gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAINJAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:41:20 +0530FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 28 of 32
weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of
the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body
where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and
severity of the blows given etc….”
61. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC,
although the nature of injury actually caused may often give
considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of
the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other
circumstances and may even in some cases be ascertained without
any reference at all to actual wounds. Even if the injury was on the
vital part of the body, but it is simple in nature, then the offence
cannot be said to be covered under Section 307 IPC.
62. It has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
in Kalloo & Another v. State, 1993 (1) Crimes 397 that when the
gun shot injuries on the person of injured were simple in nature,
though were on the vital part of the body, but the doctor opined
them neither grievous nor dangerous, the offence falls under
Section 324 and not under Section 307 IPC.
63. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tukaram Gundu Naik
v. State of Maharashtra 1994 Cri. L.J. 224, wherein the injury was
on the elbow joint and incised wound on the epigastric region, but
were simple in nature, was pleased to observe as under:-
“…. Further, the doctor’s evidence would show that none of
the vital organs was injured. Under these circumstances, a
doubt arises whether the accused intended to commit murder
and thus made an attempt. In our view the accused can be
attributed only knowledge that by inflicting such injuries he
was likely to cause death and an attempt to commit such an
offence would be one punishable under Section 308 IPC.
Section 308 IPC lays down that such an offence is punishable
with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAINJAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:41:25 +0530FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 29 of 32
fine or with both and if hurt is caused, the assailant can be
punished with imprisonment of either description which may
extend to seven years or with fine or with both.”
64. In State of Punjab v. Bant Singh 1996 (2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 135, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had given
much stress on actual intention of the accused which could be
inferred from the nature of the injury and extent of the damage
caused to the body. The relevant excerpt is as under :-
“…. All that has been said is that the injury having been
caused by a sharp edged weapon and being on vital part of
the injured, the same would be sufficient enough to charge
and accordingly convict Bant Singh and Nachhattar Singh
under Section 307 IPC. The sole contention of the learned
counsel, as noted above, does not impress us at all. Simply
because the concerned injury is on the vital part of the body,
in our view, will not be enough to bring it either under
Section 307 or Section 326 IPC. To charge a person under
Section 307 or 326 IPC, it shall have to be shown as to what
was the actual intention of the assailant as also as to what is
the nature of injury i.e. the extent of damage caused to body
or any organ thereof. It is true that Nachhattar Singh has
been attributed injury on the head of injured and the said
injury appears to have been caused with sharp edged weapon
but, from the medical evidence, gist whereof has been given
above, it appears that there was no damage to any vital part
nor any fracture was found on x-ray examination. The case
against Nachhattar Singh and Bant Singh, thus, could not
fall either under Section 307 or Section 326 IPC. Their
acquittal on the charge of Section 307 IPC is, thus, justified
and order passed on that count by the trial judge calls for no
interference….”
65. In the present case, the facts and circumstances speak
themselves that the accused persons were reportedly not armed
and did not inflict any injury to victim as per his own statement.
There is no previous enmity between accused persons and victim
and no apparent pre-meditation to commit alleged offences by the
accused persons and the offence allegedly happened when a verbal
altercation took place between victim Rajan and accused Deepak
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.28
17:41:29 +0530
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 30 of 32
who brought a knife and caused several injuries to victim with the
same. The injuries caused to the victim are reportedly not on his
vital body parts. Moreover, there is no opinion of doctor as to
nature of injuries received by the victim. Considering the totality
of circumstances, parts of body where injuries were caused and
severity of blows, it would be difficult to hold that the accused
persons had requisite intention or knowledge to commit offence
under Section 307 IPC, but they are nonetheless held liable for
commission of offence under Section 308/34 IPC.
Conclusion
66. Keeping in view the totality of facts, circumstances
and observations as above, it is held that while testimony of
alleged eye-witness PW-3 Radha was not found credible, Ld.
Counsel for accused persons failed to point out any material
inconsistency or contradiction in the testimony of injured /PW-2
Rajan, so as to render the same unreliable and unworthy of credit.
It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused
persons in furtherance of their common intention with co-accused
Deepak (since deceased) had caused injuries on the person of
victim Rajan by giving knife blows to him on various parts of his
body. However, the manner and nature of injury caused to injured
would not be covered within the scope of Section 307 IPC but
under Section 308 IPC, being minor offence. Hence, all the
accused persons namely, Mohd. Ishaq, Afaq @ Sheru and Ahklaq
are held guilty for offence under Section 308/34 IPC and are
accordingly convicted of the same.
Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date: JAIN 2025.03.28 17:41:34 +0530 FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 31 of 32
67. Let accused persons be heard separately on the point
of sentence. Copy of the judgment is given to accused free of cost.
68. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.03.28
17:41:39 +0530ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN)
COURT ON 28.03.2025 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHIThis judgment contains 32 pages and each paper is
signed by me.
Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2025.03.28
17:41:44
+0530
(AKASH JAIN)
ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
FIR No:- 144/2012 State v. Deepak & Ors. Page No. 32 of 32
[ad_1]
Source link