Delhi District Court
State vs Lakshay@Lucky on 15 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 05, (CENTRAL
DISTRICT) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-002023-2023
Sessions Case No. 82/2023
FIR No.353/2022
PS: Timarpur
U/s 307 IPC
State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky
a) Date of commission of offence : 06.11.2022
b) Name of the complainant : Vijay
S/o Ramswaroop
c) Name of accused and address : Lakshay @ Lucky
S/o Sh. Vijay
R/o D-220, 1st Floor
Gandhi Vihar,
Timarpur, Delhi
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 307 IPC
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : CONVICTED U/s
307 IPC
In view of the circular bearing No. 73362-73488/Rules/ Gaz./2024
dated 18.12.2024, the accused has been informed of the availability of
free legal aid services for pursuing further remedies, if any.
Contact Address of CDLSA:- Room no. 287, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 1 of 37
Date of institution of the case : 21.01.2023
Date of committal : 03.02.2023
Date on which judgment was : 28.01.2025
reserved
Date of judgment : 15.02.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused Lakshay @ Lucky
on 06.11.2022, at 08:00-08:30 PM, near Auto Stand Gandhi
Vihar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Timarpur, caused
injuries to the complainant Vijay with knife with such intention
or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, he
had caused his death, the accused would have been guilty of
murder and thus, the accused Lakshay @ Lucky committed the
offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC.
REGISTRATION OF THE FIR, INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE
SHEET
2. The criminal machinery of the State was put into motion in the
present case on receipt of DD no. 80A dated 06.11.2022 by SI
Pradeep Chauhan, posted with PS Timarpur at the relevant time.
Vide the above said DD entry no. 80A, the information was
received to the effect that the injured Vijay Kumar was admitted
in the hospital after receipt of stab injury at Gandhi Vihar Cut,
Near CNG Pump. The information was given by Ajay Kumar, the
brother of the injured.
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 2 of 37
3. SI Pradeep Chauhan accompanied by Ct. Pankaj reached Trauma
Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi and found that the injured with the
alleged history of stab injury was admitted in the said hospital
vide MLC no. 2618/2022. As per the MLC of the injured, the
injured Vijay Kumar was having incised wounds approximately 5
cm x 2 cm with bowel loops protruding outside below umbilicus
in hypogastrium area and protruded bowel loop lacerated at two
sides at a distance of 3 cm from each other. The MLC has been
prepared on 06.11.2022 at about 08:55 PM. The injured was unfit
for statement as per the opinion of the treating doctor who
handed over two sealed pullandas containing the blood samples
and clothes of the injured to SI Pradeep Chauhan which were
seized by him.
4. The above said FIR bearing no. 353/2022 u/s 307 IPC PS
Timarpur, Delhi was lodged on 07.11.2022 at the instance of the
injured/ complainant Vijay Kumar, who was fit for his statement
on 07.11.2022. The complainant has alleged that he was plying
an auto from Gandhi Vihar Auto Stand to GTB Nagar and a
scuffle had taken place in between him and the accused Lucky a
long time ago. The accused Lucky also used to ply auto rickshaw
earlier but thereafter, he was sent to jail in some matter. At about
08:00-08:30 PM on 06.11.2022, when the complainant was
waiting for the passengers by standing at Gandhi Vihar Auto
Stand, then, the accused Lucky came at the spot and started
quarreling and abusing the complainant. The accused Lucky
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 3 of 37
pulled out a knife by saying that he would kill the complainant
and with the intention to kill the complainant, he gave a stab
injury in the stomach of the complainant. The complainant ran
away from the spot with a view to save his life and went to a
private doctor near Batra Cinema by riding in an auto. In the
mean time, the complainant gave a call to his brother Ajay who
came there and took the injured to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines.
5. As per the charge sheet, the IO of the case SI Pradeep Chauhan
made a search of the accused but he could not be found but
ultimately with the help of the beat officer HC Mandeep, after
identification by HC Mandeep, who stated that he was knowing
the accused Lucky, the accused Lucky was apprehended by the
IO of the case from near Dussehra Ground, A Block, Gandhi
Vihar. The IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused
after arresting him. The weapon of offence i.e. the knife was
recovered at the instance of the accused by the IO from the
bushes near Dussehra Ground. The IO, in the charge sheet, has
mentioned that as per the disclosure statement of the accused
Lakshay @ Lucky, he disclosed that the weapon of offence was
purchased by him for Rs. 80/- from a utensil shop at Shani Bazar,
Gandhi Vihar, Delhi.
6. No eye witness was found to be at the spot as per the charge sheet
and no CCTV footage was also found. The site plan without scale
was prepared at the instance of the complainant, who also
identified the photo of the accused from the dossier shown to him
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 4 of 37
by the IO. The nature of the injuries was opined to be ‘grievous’
by the concerned doctor.
7. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed
u/s 307 of the IPC by the IO.
COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE
8. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the ld. MM-02, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide orders dated 27.01.2023.
SUPPLY OF COPIES AND COMMITTAL
9. Copies of the charge sheet and that of the documents annexed
with the charge sheet were supplied to the accused Lakshay @
Lucky in compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter
vide orders dated 03.02.2023, the ld. MM committed the present
case to the court of Sessions. Thereafter vide orders dated
07.02.2023, the case was assigned to the court of Sessions by the
Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge(HQs), Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
CHARGE
10. Finding a prima facie case against the accused Lakshay @ Lucky,
vide orders dated 19.02.2023 passed by this court, the accused
Lakshay @ Lucky was charged with the offence punishable u/s
307 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many
as 9 witnesses in all.
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 5 of 37
12. Prosecution examined W/HC Bhajan Kaur as PW1. PW1
deposed that on 07.11.2022, she was posted as Duty Officer at
PS Timarpur from 08:00 am to 04:00 pm. On that day, at about
11:40 am, Ct. Pankaj reached the police station alongwith a rukka
sent by SI Pradeep Chauhan, on the basis of which, present FIR
was registered, copy of which is Ex. PW1/A. The endorsement
made on the rukka is Ex. PW1/B and she also identified her
signature on the same. The certificate under Section 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act regarding the FIR was exhibited as Ex.
PW1/C. She lastly deposed that the copy of FIR, certificate u/s
65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and rukka were handed over to
Ct Pankaj.
In her cross examination, PW1 deposed that she has no personal
knowledge about the facts of the present case. She deposed that
the contents of the FIR were fed into the Computer by the
Computer Operator in her presence. She admitted that she has no
knowledge to operate the computer.
13. PW2 is HC Ashwani, who deposed that on 06.11.2022, he was
posted as MHC(M) at PS Timarpur. On that day, SI Pradeep
deposited two sealed pulandas alongwith a copy of seizure memo
which were entered into register No.19 at serial No.2654, copy of
which was Ex. PW2/A (OSR). On 07.11.2022, SI Pradeep
deposited one sealed pulanda/box alongwith a seizure memo
which was entered into register No. 19 at serial no. 2655, copy of
which was Ex. PW2/B (OSR). He further deposed that on
27.12.2022, the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct.
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 6 of 37
Surender Meena vide RC No. 176/21/22 which is Ex. PW2/C
(OSR). Ct. Surender Meena handed him over the
acknowledgment after depositing the exhibits with the FSL. He
deposed that no tampering took place with the case property till
the time the same remained in his custody.
In his cross examination, PW2 deposed that he made the entry in
register No. 19 at about 10:30 am. SI Pradeep deposited the case
property during the day time, however, he could not tell the exact
time.
14. PW3 is Ct. Pankaj, who deposed that on 06.11.2022, he was on
night emergency duty with SI Pradeep. At about 10:30 pm, he
went to trauma centre with SI Pradeep where SI Pradeep was told
by the doctor that injured was not fit to give the statement.
Doctor handed over two sealed pulandas to the IO upon which,
IO prepared a seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He identified his
signatures on the seizure memo. He alongwith IO went to the
spot from the hospital where they could not find any eye witness.
They again went to the hospital on the next day and IO recorded
the statement of injured Vijay. IO handed over the rukka to him
for registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he took
the rukka, computerized copy of the FIR and certificate u/s 65-B
of Indian Evidence Act and handed over the same to IO at PS. He
could not tell exactly where the said documents were handed over
to the IO by him.
In his cross examination, PW3 deposed that the sealed pulandas
handed over to the IO by the doctor contained the cloths and the
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 7 of 37
blood samples. They remained at the hospital for about one hour.
On next day, they visited the hospital at about 10:30- 11:00 am.
He could not tell time when rukka was handed over to him or the
time when he reached the PS with the rukka or the time when he
handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. He also could
not tell that after how much time of handing over the rukka to the
Duty Officer, the copy of FIR was handed over to him.
15. Dr. Jony Kumar was examined as PW4, who deposed that on
06.11.2022, he was on duty at Sushruta trauma centre in general
surgery department. On that day, one patient namely Vijay
Kumar was referred to the surgery department from casualty. The
said patient was having injury in his abdomen and bowel who
was operated for the injuries. He deposed that patient was not fit
for statement at the time when police visited the hospital and an
endorsement in this regard was made by a junior resident doctor
under his supervision on the MLC Ex. PW4/A at point A to A1.
He deposed that, later the opinion regarding the nature of injury
was given as ‘grievous’ by him and the endorsement on the MLC
Ex. PW4/A regarding the same is at point B to B1 bearing his
signatures at point A. He also deposed that on 07.11.2022 at
about 09:05 am, the patient was declared fit for the statement and
endorsement in this regard was made on the request Ex. PW4/B
given by SI Pradeep.
In his cross examination, PW4 deposed that the patient was
referred to him at about 09:00 – 10:00 pm. Patient’s brother
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 8 of 37
brought him to the hospital. The MLC of the said patient was not
prepared by him.
16. Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta was examined as PW5, who deposed
that he was on casualty duty in Sushruta trauma centre on
06.11.2022. On that day, patient namely Vijay Kumar was
brought to casualty, by his brother at about 08:55 pm with alleged
history of stab injury at about 08:30 pm at Gandhi Vihar. He
deposed that the patient had incised wound approximately 5 cm x
2 cm with small bowel loops protruded outside below umbilicus
in hypogastrium area. The protruded bowel loop having lacerated
wound at two sites with mucosa protruded at a distance of 3 cm
from each other. He further deposed that MLC No. 2618/22 Ex.
PW4/A of the patient was prepared by Junior Resident Dr. Pooja
under his supervision. He identified his signature at point C and
signature of Dr. Pooja at point B on the MLC. He deposed that
the patient was referred to general surgery department for further
evaluation and management.
In his cross examination, PW5 deposed that he did not personally
examine the said patient.
17. Complainant Vijay was examined as PW6. He deposed that the
incident took place on 06th November, however, he could not tell
the year of the incident. He deposed that on the day of the
incident at about 08:30 pm, he was waiting for passengers at
Gandhi Vihar Highway Stand. Accused came from the opposite
side and tried to hurt him with a cigarette butt by touching the
same on his temple. When he protested, accused abused him and
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 9 of 37
said “tu mujhe janta nahi hai”. He replied “mujhe pata hai ki tu
kitna bada dada hai”. Accused stated “aaj main tera kaam hi
tamam kar dunga”. Accused took out a knife and stabbed him in
his abdomen due to which his intestine protruded from his
abdomen. Thereafter, accused fled away from the spot. He tied a
gamcha over his wound to stop the bleeding and rushed towards
Gandhi Vihar Police Post. He further deposed that upon reaching
there he found a known auto driver who took him to Durga
Hospital at Mukherjee Nagar near Batra Cinema. Upon finding
his situation as critical, he was referred to trauma centre by the
doctor. Thereafter, he made a call to his brother Ajay who
reached the said hospital, from where, PW6 was taken to trauma
centre by his brother. On the next day, police recorded his
statement Ex. PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A. He
further deposed that on 28th of November, he pointed out the
place of occurrence to the police after which a site plan Ex.
PW6/B bearing his signatures at point A was prepared. He
correctly identified the accused in the Court.
PW6 was asked leading questions by the Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, to which he affirmed the year of incident to be year 2022.
He deposed that he could identify the case property upon which
MHC(M) produced sealed parcels No. 2 and 3 bearing the seal of
FSL. The same were opened and PW6 correctly identified the
contents of parcel No.2 as his blood stained cloths i.e. jeans pant,
shirt, vest and underwear as were worn by him at the time of
incident. The blood stained cloths were exhibited collectively as
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 10 of 37
Ex. P-1. PW6 also correctly identified the contents of parcel No.
3 containing a knife as the weapon of offence. The said knife was
exhibited as Ex. P-2.
In his cross examination, he deposed that public persons were
passing through the spot and other auto rickshaws were also
present at a distance of about 100 meters. He could not tell
whether the streetlights present on the spot were beaming at the
time of incident or not. The distance between the Durga Hospital
and the spot was less than half kilometer. There was no CCTV
camera at or near the spot. He deposed that he had no opportunity
to raise the alarm when accused put burnt cigarette on his temple
as he was immediately stabbed by the accused. He did not raise
any alarm at the time of receiving of stab injury. He did not make
any call to the police. He could not tell the name of the auto
driver by whom or the registration number of the auto rickshaw
in which he was taken to the hospital. Accused used to drive auto
prior to the incident. He knew the address and family members of
the accused. He deposed that there was no money transaction
between him and the accused. His statement was recorded only
once by the police. He further deposed that he told the name of
the accused to the doctor concerned at the trauma centre. He
again voluntarily deposed that on the day of incident, he was
semi-conscious and therefore, he could not tell the name of the
accused to the doctor. He deposed about the same at a later stage
when his treatment was being followed up. He lastly deposed that
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 11 of 37
they reached the trauma centre from Durga Hospital within 15-20
minutes.
18.HC Mandeep was examined as PW7. He deposed that on
07.11.2022, he was on duty as beat officer at Gandhi Vihar. SI
Pradeep Chauhan intimated him about the incident dated
06.11.2022 and disclosed the name of the assailant as Lakshay @
Lucky. Accused was known to him as accused was a resident of
his beat. He further deposed that he alongwith SI Pradeep
Chauhan went to the residence of the accused, which was found
locked. They searched for the accused who was found at
Dussehra Ground near A-Block, Gandhi Vihar and the accused
was apprehended. SI Pradeep Chauhan interrogated the accused
about the weapon of the offence, however, accused did not
disclose anything. PW7 further deposed that accused was
thereafter taken to the police station for interrogation where
accused disclosed about the place of concealment of weapon of
offence i.e. the knife. Disclosure statement of the accused was
recorded as Ex. PW7/A. He further deposed that accused
thereafter took them to the Dussehra Ground from where the
weapon of offence was recovered from under the bushes. IO
prepared the sketch of the said knife which is Ex. PW7/B. PW7
correctly identified the accused in the Court. IO prepared a
pullanda of said knife and sealed the same with the seal of ‘PC’
vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. Thereafter, IO prepared the site
plan of the recovery which was exhibited as Ex. PW7/D. Accused
was arrested and was personally searched vide arrest memo Ex.
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 12 of 37
PW7/E and personal search memo Ex. PW7/F. He also deposed
that accused then led them to the place of occurrence where IO
prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW7/G. He identified the
signatures at points A on all the above mentioned documents.
Thereafter, they returned to the PS where case property was
deposited in the malkhana. Accused was got medically examined
and was produced before the Court who was then sent to judicial
custody. IO recorded his statement.
PW7 was asked leading questions by the Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, to which he affirmed that IO handed over the seal to him
after use. PW7 further stated that the handing over memo Ex.
PW7/H was bearing his signatures at point A. He correctly
identified the case property i.e. the knife Ex. P-2.
In his cross examination, PW7 deposed that they went to the
house of the accused on foot. There was no CCTV camera on the
spot. He deposed that he alongwith IO and accused went to the
spot of occurrence during the day time, however, he could not tell
the exact time. Accused was apprehended from Dusshera Ground
at about 01:30 pm. No videography or photography was done at
the time of recovery of the knife. No notice was served upon the
public persons who refused to join the investigation. He could not
tell whether any departure entry was made at the PS or not. The
distance between the police station and police post was about
2½ Km. They went to the spot of recovery, alongwith the
accused, by private car of IO. He could not tell the registration
number or the make of the said car. He deposed that the
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 13 of 37
disclosure statement of the accused was handwritten. He again
said, the same was typed on laptop. He further deposed that the
length of the knife was measured at the place of recovery with a
scale. IO was having a kit bag containing laptop, printer and
other articles in his car. The pulanda of the knife was prepared at
the place of recovery. He could not tell who deposited the IO’s
kit bag at the PS.
19.Dr. Arunima Aggarwal was examined as PW8 who deposed that
on 06.11.2022, she was posted at Sushruta trauma centre, Civil
Lines where two x-ray plates no. 7010 and 7011 pertaining to
MLC No. 2618/22 were placed before her. Upon perusal, she did
not find any fresh bone injury regarding which she prepared a
report Ex. PW8/A bearing her signatures at point A. She was not
cross examined.
20.IO SI Pradeep Chauhan was examined as PW9, who deposed that
on the intervening night of 06/07.11.2022, he was posted at night
emergency duty alongwith Ct. Pankaj. At about 09:55 am, Duty
Officer informed him about DD No.80A regarding admission of
injured Vijay Kumar in Trauma Centre, Civil Lines. Thereafter,
he alongwith Ct. Pankaj reached the Trauma Centre where he
collected MLC of injured Vijay Kumar bearing No. 2618/22. He
further deposed that the doctor concerned opined that injured was
unfit for statement and the doctor endorsed the same on the MLC
Ex. PW4/A. The doctor concerned handed over two sealed
pulandas containing blood stained clothes and blood sample of
the injured which were taken into possession vide seizure memo
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 14 of 37
Ex. PW3/A, bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed
that he met Ajay, brother of the injured, who told the IO/PW9
about the place of occurrence to be the auto stand, Gandhi Vihar,
Timarpur. He alongwith Ct. Pankaj went to the spot, however, he
neither found any eye witness nor any CCTV camera installed
near the spot. He further deposed that on 07.11.2022, he again
went to Lok Nayak Hospital with Ct. Pankaj where the injured
was opined as fit for statement and the doctor concerned made
his endorsement on an application Ex. PW4/B. He inquired about
the incident from the injured and recorded the statement of the
injured Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at point B. He made
endorsement Ex. PW9/A on the complaint and the said rukka was
handed over to Ct. Pankaj for registration of the FIR. He further
deposed that after registration of the FIR, Ct. Pankaj handed over
the computerized copy of FIR, rukka and certificate u/s 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act at near the gate of the PS. PW9 reached at
the gate of the PS as the PS was falling on the way to the spot of
occurrence as IO was heading towards the spot of occurrence. He
recorded the statement of Ct. Pankaj, who was then relieved as
Ct. Pankaj was engaged in some other matter. He deposed that
thereafter, he reached the spot and met local beat staff HC
Mandeep.
In his further examination-in-chief done on 14.10.2024, PW9 IO
SI Pradeep Chauhan deposed on the lines of the investigation
carried out by him. PW7 HC Mandeep told him that he was
aware about the address of the accused and that he could identify
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 15 of 37
the said accused. The accused was apprehended from Dussehra
Ground near A-Block, Gandhi Vihar. PW9, the IO of the case has
spoken about the disclosure statement of the accused already
exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, the arrest and personal search memos of
the accused already exhibited as Ex. PW7/E and Ex. PW7/F,
about the recovery of the knife, identified by PW9 Ex. P-2 on
record, about the sketch of the knife already exhibited as Ex.
PW7/B, about the seizure memo of the pullanda containing the
knife already exhibited as Ex. PW7/C, site plan of the place of
recovery of the knife already exhibited as Ex. PW7/D, about the
site plan of the place of occurrence already exhibited as Ex.
PW6/B. PW9 has further stated that the doctor gave the opinion
about the nature of the injury as grievous.
In the cross-examination, PW9 has stated that he did not record
the statement of the brother of the injured namely Ajay as he was
not the eye-witness to the incident in question. PW9 has further
stated that the public persons were present at Dussehra Ground.
By way of volunteer, PW9 has stated that the accused started
making hue and cry and therefore, he was taken to the police
station. PW9 has further stated that no photography or
videography was done at the time of recovery of the weapon of
offence and that no independent public witness was joined in the
investigation, at the time of the recovery of the knife. PW9 has
denied the suggestion that knife was planted upon the accused
with a view to falsely implicate him.
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 16 of 37
DROPPING OF THE WITNESSES BY THE LD. ADDL. PP
FOR THE STATE
21.Vide his separate statement recorded on 29.05.2024, the ld. Addl.
PP for the State dropped PW Inspector Shrichand from the list of
witnesses as he merely collected the FSL result and filed the
supplementary charge sheet. PW Ct. Surendra was also dropped
as the accused admitted the FSL result under Section 294 of the
Cr.P.C..
ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTION 294 OF
Cr.P.C.
22.Vide separate statement of the accused recorded on 29.05.2024,
the accused Lakshay @ Lucky admitted the FSL report dated
27.04.2023 as Ex. AD-1 and the allelic data dated 27.04.2023 as
Ex. AD-2.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 OF THE Cr.P.C.
23.After the conclusion of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution,
the statement of the accused Lakshay @ Lucky was recorded u/s
313 of the Cr.P.C.. The accused, in his statement u/s 313 of the
Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and took
the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
24.No evidence in defence has been led by the accused.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
25.During the course of arguments, ld. Addl. PP for the State has
argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the
accused u/s 307 of the IPC beyond any reasonable doubt by the
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 17 of 37
aid of the testimony of the complainant PW6 who is the injured
himself coupled with the testimony of the medical witnesses
PW4 Dr. Jony Kumar and PW5 Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta who
proved on record the MLC of the injured as Ex. PW4/A. It has
been further argued that concerned doctor gave the opinion on the
MLC of the injured as ‘grievous’ and the weapon of offence i.e.
the knife Ex. P-2 has been identified by the injured PW6 Vijay,
by the IO of the case PW9 SI Pradeep Chauhan. It has been
further argued that as per the MLC and as per the testimony of
PW4 Dr. Jony Kumar, the intestines were protruding from the
injury and the injured had to be operated upon for his injury. It
has been further argued that the ferocity of the attack is visible
from the MLC and sufficient in itself to bring the guilt of the
accused within the fore-corners of Section 307 of IPC.
26.Whereas, on the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused has
argued that at the most, even as per the case of the prosecution,
Section 308 of the IPC is made out and Section 307 of the IPC is
not made out. It has been further argued that there are
contradictions in the testimonies of injured PW6 who stated in his
examination in chief recorded before the court on 29.05.2024 that
the accused started trying to hurt him with cigarette butt by
touching the same on his temple but the above said part of his
statement has not been mentioned in the memorandum of
statement Ex. PW6/A on record, on the basis of which, the FIR in
question has been lodged. It has been further argued that the
stabbing was done by the accused only once and therefore, the
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 18 of 37
ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC are not fulfilled. It has been
further argued that the auto driver in which the injured was taken
to the hospital has not been examined by the prosecution. It has
been further argued that there are no pubic witnesses to the
recovery of the knife i.e. the weapon of offence despite the
availability of the same. It has been further argued that at the
most Section 324 of the IPC is made out. It has been further
argued that the name of the auto driver in which the injured was
taken to the hospital has also not been disclosed. It has been
prayed that either the accused be exonerated of the charges u/s
307 of the IPC or the accused be convicted either u/s 324 of the
IPC or u/s 308 of the IPC.
27.I have carefully gone through the entire material available on
record and heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the
accused Lakshay @ Lucky and that of the ld. Addl. PP for the
State.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
OCULAR EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT/ INJURED
28.In the case in hand, the ocular evidence of the complainant/
injured Sh. Vijay, who has been examined by the prosecution as
PW6 is there on record. The material aspects of the examination-
in-chief and even that of the cross-examination of PW6, have
already been discussed hereinabove.
29.The question, as to how, the ocular testimony of the witnesses
has to be appreciated by a court has been discussed in detail in
the judgment titled as Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 19 of 37
Vs. State of Haryana cited as 2022 Live Law (SC) 596, relied
upon by the ld. Addl. PP for the State. In the said judgment, the
Hon’ble Apex court of the Land has summarized in brief the
principles governing the appreciation of ocular evidence in para
no. 27 thereof as under:-
” 27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard
task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for
appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially
evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence
in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness
read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once
that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary
for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more
particularly keeping in view the deficiencies,
drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence
as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is
against the general tenor of the evidence given by the
witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the
evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives
evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about
the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the
appellate court which had not this benefit will have to
attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by
the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and
formidable it would not be proper to reject the
evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. But
courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the
court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching
the core of the case, hyper technical approach by
taking sentences torn out of context here or there from
the evidence, attaching importance to some technical
error committed by the investigating officer not going
to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permitSC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 20 of 37
rejection of the evidence as a whole. V. Too serious a
view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between the evidence
of two witnesses or as between two statements of the
same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial
scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to
possess a photographic memory and to recall the
details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is
replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is
overtaken by events. The witness could not have
anticipated the occurrence which so often has an
element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice, another may not. An
object or movement might emboss its image on one
person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the
part of another. IX. By and large people cannot
accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very
words used by them or heard by them. They can only
recall the main purport of the conversation. It is
unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape
recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their
estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at
the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect
people to make very precise or reliable estimates in
such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of
individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events which take place in
rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is
liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated
later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing
cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness
mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of
events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur
of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness
sometimes so operates on account of the fear of
looking foolish or being disbelieved though theSC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 21 of 37
witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the
occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly
inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be
sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the
former statement has the potency to discredit the later
statement, even if the later statement is at variance
with the former to some extent it would not be helpful
to contradict that witness. ”
30. The weight to be attached to the testimony of an injured witness
has been described in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the matter titled as Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh cited as (2010)10 SCC 259, wherein, it has been
observed as under:-
” 26. 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.
“Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured
witness”. (Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 12; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957; Appabhai & Anr. v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696; Bonkya alias Bharat Shivaji
Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 447;
Bhag Singh & Ors. (supra); Mohar & Anr. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2002) 7 SCC 606; Dinesh Kumar v. State of
Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270; Vishnu & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy
& Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2261;
Balraje alias Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC
673).
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that
the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special
status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the
injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence
at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 22 of 37
want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to
falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the
offence. Thus, 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 therein. ”
31. In the light of the ratio of the above stated judgment, it has to be
seen that the complainant/ injured Sh. Vijay PW6 has fully
corroborated his version as contained in his memorandum of
statement Ex. PW6/A on record. PW6 has categorically stated
that it was the accused Lakshay @ Lucky who took out a knife
from his person and gave a stab wound in his abdomen, due to
which, intestines protruded from the abdomen and after that the
accused fled away from the spot. PW6 tied gamchha over his
wound for stopping the bleeding and thereafter, he rushed
towards Gandhi Vihar Police Post and when he reached near the
gate of the said police post, one auto driver who was known to
him, met him and took him to Durga Hospital near Batra Cinema.
The concerned doctor stated that his condition was critical and he
was advised to be taken to trauma centre. PW6 gave a call to his
brother Ajay and he was taken to trauma center by his brother
Ajay. The site plan was prepared at the instance of the injured
PW6 and the same has been exhibited as Ex. PW6/B.
32. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the accused has
vehemently argued that PW6 has improved over his version when
he was examined in the court because he stated that on the day of
the incident at about 08:30 PM, when he was waiting for
passengers at Gandhi Vihar, the accused, who was correctly
identified by PW6 came there and first of all, he tried to hurt himSC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 23 of 37
with cigarette butt by touching it on his temple but the above said
fact has not been mentioned in his memorandum of statement Ex.
PW6/A on record on the basis of which, the FIR in question was
lodged.
33. It is true that the above said version of hurting the injured with
the cigarette butt on his temple by the accused has not been stated
by the injured in his statement Ex. PW6/A on record but it has to
be seen that in the authority titled as Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail
Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Haryana cited as 2022 Live Law (SC)
596, it has been categorically observed that a witness is not
expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the
details of an incident on account of lapse of time or on account of
the fact that the injured was in a state of shock and trauma. The
date of incident in the present case was 06.11.2022 but the
testimony of PW6 was recorded on 29.05.2024 i.e. after a gap of
one and a half years approximately. PW6 has categorically stated
in his examination-in-chief, that he was not remembering the year
of the incident on account of lapse of time but when he was put a
leading question by the ld. Addl. PP for the State, then, he
categorically admitted that the year of the incident was 2022.
PW6 categorically identified the clothes worn by him at the time
of the incident exhibited as Ex. P-1 and the knife which was the
weapon of offence as Ex. P-2.
34. Even in the cross-examination, the injured PW6 has categorically
clarified that there were no CCTV cameras at or near the spot and
there was no opportunity for him for raising the alarm at the timeSC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 24 of 37
of putting the burnt cigarette on his temple as the accused
immediately stabbed him with knife.
35. It has to be seen that the Hon’ble Apex Court of the Land in the
judgment titled as V.K. Mishra & Anr Vs. State of Uttarakhand
& Anr. Crl. Appeal no. 1247 of 2012 decided on 28.07.2015 has
observed as under:-
36. ” 12. FIR is not meant to be an encyclopedia nor is it
expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It
may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case
are stated in the FIR. Complaint was lodged within few
hours after the tragic event. PW-1 has lost his young
daughter just married before six weeks in unnatural
circumstances. Death of a daughter within few days of the
marriage, the effect on the mind of the father-PW1 cannot
be measured by any yardstick. While lodging the report,
PW-1 must have been in great shock and mentally
disturbed. Because of death of his young daughter being
grief stricken, it may not have occurred to PW-1 to narrate
all the details of payment of money and the dowry
harassment meted out to his daughter. Unless there are
indications of fabrication, prosecution version cannot be
doubted, merely on the ground that FIR does not contain
the details. ”
37. The above stated judgment categorically states that FIR is not
supposed to contain all the details of the case of the prosecution
and it is sufficient, if the broad facts of the prosecution case are
stated in the FIR. In the case in hand as well, I am of the opinion
that the complainant PW6, at whose instance, the FIR has been
lodged has broadly and categorically stated about the incident of
stabbing in the memorandum of statement Ex. PW6/A on record.
38. Going by the ratio of the above stated judgments, I am of the
opinion that non-mentioning of the date of incident in his
examination-in-chief and non-mentioning of the fact of hurting
the injured by cigarette butt on his temple by the accused in hisSC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 25 of 37
memorandum of statement Ex. PW6/A are not going to affect the
case of the prosecution at all.
39. PW6 in the cross-examination has categorically stated that the
accused and his family members were known to him and there
was no money transaction in between him and the accused. To
my mind, the testimony of PW6 which is corroborated by the
medical evidence led by PW4 Dr. Jony Kumar and PW5 Dr.
Santosh Kumar Gupta is trustworthy, reliable, confidence
inspiring. This court does not find any reason to disbelieve the
testimony of the injured PW1 so far as the incident in question,
the identification of the accused and the identification of the case
property are concerned.
IDENTITY AND PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED
40. The identity and presence of the accused are itself proved by the
testimony of the injured PW6 himself. PW6, in his cross-
examination, has categorically stated that the accused used to
drive auto prior to the incident and the family members of the
accused are known to him. PW6 was also knowing the address of
the accused. The MLC bearing no. 2618/2022 of the injured PW6
Ex. PW4/A on record specifically states the history of stab injury
on 06.11.2022 around 08:30 PM near Gandhi Vihar as told by
Ajay Kumar, the brother of the injured. The MLC corroborates
the version of the injured and the prosecution to the effect that the
injured was brought to the Trauma Center i.e. Lok Nayak
Hospital by his brother Ajay Kumar. PW6 in the cross-
examination has stated that he did not tell the name of the
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 26 of 37
accused to the doctor as he was semi-conscious in the hospital.
As such, going by the testimony of the injured PW6 by the
testimony of the IO of the case PW9 SI Pradeep Chauhan and by
the testimony of the beat officer PW7 HC Mandeep, I have no
hesitation to hold that the identity of the accused and the presence
of the accused on the spot of the crime stand proved.
MEDICAL WITNESSES
41. PW4 Dr. Jony Kumar has categorically stated that on 06.11.2022,
the injured Vijay Kumar was referred to surgery department from
casualty with MLC of the patient/ injured. PW4 has further stated
that the injured was having injury in his abdomen with bowel
injury and haemoperitoneum with hypovolemic shock and that
lacerated bowel was eviscerated through abdominal injury. PW4
was operated for injury but the injured was not fit for giving the
statement on 06.11.2022 and in this regard, the Junior Resident
Doctor under his supervision had made endorsment on the MLC
of the injured Ex. PW4/A from portion A to A-1.
42. PW4 has further stated that he had opined the nature of the injury
as ‘grievous’ and he had made endorsement on the MLC from
portion B to B-1 in this regard. PW4 has further stated that on
06.11.2022 at about 09:05 AM, the injured was declared fit for
giving the statement.
43. PW5 Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta has also categorically mentioned
that on 06.11.2022, he was on duty in casualty at Sushruta
Trauma Center and the injured Vijay Kumar was brought to
casualty at about 08:55 PM with the history of stab injury at
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 27 of 37
about 08:30 PM near Gandhi Vihar. PW5 has further stated that
the said patient was brought to casualty by his brother namely
Ajay and the said patient was having incised wound
approximately 5 cm x 2 cm with small bowel loops protruded
outside below umblicus in hypogastrium area. The protruded
bowel loops was having lacerated bowel loops at two sites with
mucosa protruded at a distance of 3 cm from each other. PW5 has
identified the signatures of his junior Resident Doctor Pooja on
MLC Ex. PW4/A.
44. Testimonies of above said two medical witnesses PW4 and PW5,
thus, categorically prove the MLC, the nature of the injury as
grievous and the ferocity of the attack on the person of the
injured at the hands of the accused. In the cross-examination of
the above said two medical witnesses, no material contradiction
has come out. As such, I am of the opinion that the medical
evidence in the form of PW4 and PW5 has categorically proved
the version as stated by PW6 injured himself.
TESTIMONIES OF POLICE WITNESSES INCLUDING THE
IO
45.In the case in hand, the prosecution has examined W/HC Bhajan
Kaur as PW1, the duty officer who had recorded the FIR; PW2
HC Ashwani, the MHC(M) posted with PS Timarpur; PW3 Ct.
Pankaj, who had joined investigation with the IO on 06.11.2022;
PW7 HC Mandeep, the beat officer at Gandhi Vihar and PW9 IO
SI Pradeep Chauhan.
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 28 of 37
46.PW1 has proved on record the FIR Ex. PW1/C, the endorsement
on the rukka Ex. PW1/B and the rukka sent by SI Pradeep
Chauhan as Ex. PW1/A. PW2 has testified about the depositing
of the two sealed pullandas by SI Pradeep Chauhan on
06.11.2022, the sending of the exhibits to FSL and this witness
has stated that no tampering took place with the case property, till
the time, the same remained, in his custody. PW3 Ct. Pankaj has
spoken about the investigation done by the IO in his presence.
PW7 HC Mandeep has proved on record the sketch of the knife
which is the weapon of offence as Ex. PW7/B, the seizure memo
of the knife as Ex. PW7/C, the site plan of the place of recovery
as Ex. PW7/D, the arrest and personal search memo of the
accused as Ex. PW7/E and 7/F. PW7 even in the cross-
examination has stuck to the point that accused was apprehended
from Dussehra Ground at about 01:30 PM but no videography or
photography was done at the time of the recovery of the knife.
PW9 is IO SI Pradeep Chauhan and this witness has deposed
about the investigation done by him on the lines of the charge
sheet. PW9 has been cross-examined in detail but even in the
cross-examination, the testimony of PW9 has not been shaken.
47.From the testimonies of the aforesaid police witnesses, I am of
the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the
investigation done by the IO including the documents prepared in
the present case during the course of investigation. The
testimonies of the police officials, in the opinion of this court, has
not been shaken, even during their cross-examination. As such, I
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 29 of 37
am of the opinion that the testimonies of the police officials is in
conformity with the ocular version complainant PW6 and the
medical witnesses PW4 and PW5.
IDENTITY OF THE CASE PROPERTY AND WEAPON OF
OFFENCE
48.The complainant, PW6 has clearly identified the clothes worn by
him at the time of the incident i.e. blood stained jeans pant, blood
stained vest, blood stained shirt and blood stained underwear
exhibited as Ex. P-1. PW6 has also categorically identified the
weapon of offence i.e. Ex. P-2. PW9 IO of the case has also
identified the weapon of offence. PW7 HC Mandeep has also
categorically deposed about the recovery of the weapon of
offence at the instance of the accused and about the sketch of the
knife Ex. PW7/B and about the seizure memo of the knife as Ex.
PW7/C. PW3 Ct. Pankaj has deposed about the seizure memo Ex.
PW3/A in respect of the two pullandas in sealed condition which
were handed over to the IO by the concerned doctor.
49.The testimonies of PW3, PW6, PW7 and PW9, in the opinion of
this court are sufficient in itself to prove on record the identity of
the case property i.e. of the clothes worn by the injured at the
time of the incident Ex. P-1 and the identity of the knife i.e. of
the weapon of offence Ex. P-2 on record.
MOTIVE
50.During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the accused has
argued that there was no motive to give the stab injury to the
injured on the part of the accused.
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 30 of 37
51.The memorandum of statement Ex. PW6/A, on the basis of
which, the FIR was lodged, states that the accused Lakshay @
Lucky was having motive as the accused had picked up a quarrel
with the injured prior to the incident dated 06.11.2022 but when
PW6 was examined in the court, the incident of prior quarrelling
has not been stated by the complainant/ injured PW6. However, it
has to be seen that in the case in hand, direct evidence of the
injured was available and when direct evidence of an eye-witness
is available, then, motive loses all its importance. In the case
titled as State of UP Vs. Kishanpal & Ors. decided on
08.08.2008 arising out of Criminal Appeal no. 936/2003, in para
no. 18 thereof, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as
under:-
“…..It is also settled law that the motive looses all its
importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witnesses is
available, because even if there may be a very strong motive
for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they
cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not
convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an
apparent motive but if the evidence of eye-witnesses is clear
and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand
in the way of conviction. …..”
52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter titled as
Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab cited as AIR
2004 SC 1920 decided on 10.03.2004, in para no. 7 thereof, has
held as under:-
“…. when the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses
corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the
prosecution version failure or omission of negligence on the
part of the IO cannot affect credibility of the prosecution
version.”
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 31 of 37
53.Keeping in view the ratio of the above stated authorities, I am of
the opinion that even the absence of motive is not going to affect
the case of the prosecution as the direct evidence of the injured
coupled with the medical evidence is available and the same is
trustworthy, reliable and confidence inspiring, in the opinion of
this court.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
54.The accused has been charged with the offence punishable under
Section 307 of the IPC. The necessary ingredients of Section 307
of the IPC are as follows:-
i. That the accused did an act;
ii. that the act was done with the intention or knowledge and
under such circumstances to cause a bodily injury as the
accused knew to be likely to cause death or that such bodily
injury was in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or
that the accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act
known to be him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in
all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death; and
iii. that the accused had no excuse for incurring the risk of
causing such death or injury
55.During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the accused has
vehemently argued that only a single stab wound was given and
as such, either Section 308 of the IPC or Section 324 of the IPC
is made out against the accused but Section 307 of the IPC is not
made out.
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 32 of 37
56.It is true that a single stab wound was given but the ferocity of
the attack is apparent from the testimonies of PW4 Dr. Jony
Kumar and PW5 Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta. As per PW4, the
injured was not fit for giving the statement on 06.11.2022 and his
statement was recorded by the IO only on 07.11.2022. As per
PW4, the injured had to be operated upon for his injuries. The
MLC no. 2618/2022 Ex. PW4/A has already been proved by
PW4 and PW5. The injured was having incised wound
approximately 5 cm X 2 cm with small bowel loops protruded
outside below umbilicus in hypogastrium area and protruded
bowel loop lacerated at two sides at a distance of 3 cm from each
other. The prosecution witness PW4 has categorically opined that
the nature of the injury was grievous.
57.Going by the testimony of PW4 and PW5 and the MLC Ex.
PW4/A, I am of the opinion that the necessary ingredients of
Section 307 of the IPC are being fulfilled. This court does not
find any weight in the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the
accused to the effect that Section 308 of the IPC or Section 324
of the IPC are made out.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE
58.The FSL report Ex. AD-1 was admitted by the accused Lakshay
@ Lucky together with the allelic data dated 27.04.2023
exhibited as Ex. AD-2 in his statement recorded u/s 294 of the
Cr.P.C. on 29.05.2024. As per the FSL report, the blood sample
of the injured/ victim was found to be matching with the clothes
worn by the injured i.e. with his jeans pants, baniyan/ vest and
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 33 of 37
shirt. However, the DNA from the source of knife could not be
isolated due to degradation/ inhibition. As such, I am of the
opinion that even the clothes worn by the injured Ex. P-1 on
record were found to be having blood matching with the blood
sample of the victim, in corroboration with the case of the
prosecution.
OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED
59.Ld. counsel for the accused has further argued that neither the
auto driver, in which the injured went to a private doctor near
Batra Cinema has been examined nor any public witness has been
examined either at the time of arrest of the accused or at the time
of recovery of the weapon of offence despite the availability of
the same.
60.It is true that PW9 IO of the case has categorically admitted that
no photography or videography was done at the time of recovery
of the weapon of offence and no independent public witnesses
were joined at the time of recovery of the knife but the non-
examination of the public witnesses or a particular number of
witnesses does not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It is the
quality of the evidence led by the prosecution and not the
quantity of the evidence which matters.
61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Rajesh
Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of UP (Crl. Appeal no. 339-340/2014
decided on 04.02.2022) has held as under:-
“31.A mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate
the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not
the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is
satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution alongSC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 34 of 37
with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed
with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any
prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence
is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in
support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is
on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been
produced deliberately to prove it……… ”
62. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter titled
as Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat cited as AIR 1988 SC
696 has observed as under:-
” 10. In the light of these principles, we may now consider the
first contention urged by the learned Counsel for the
appellants. The contention relates to the failure of the
prosecution to examine independent witnesses. The High
Court has examined this contention but did not find any
infirmity in the investigation. It is no doubt true that the
prosecution has not been able to produce any independent
witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There
must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution
case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone.
Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally
insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence.
They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They
keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable.
They think that crime like civil dispute is between two
individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves.
This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed
unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life,
towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which
the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court,
therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of
independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the
prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth
with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the
accused. The Court, however, must bear in mind that
witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner.
Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses at
a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react
differently. Their, course of conduct may not be of ordinary
type in the normal circumstances. The Court, therefore, cannot
reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or
reacted in an unusual manner. In Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State
of Haryana 1988 (3) S.C.C. 327 O. Chinnappa Reddy J.
speaking for this Court succinctly set out what might be theSC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 35 of 37
behaviour of different persons witnessing the same incident.
The learned Judge observed; (at p. 330).
Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way.
Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the
spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start
shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far
removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the
rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-
attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special
way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the
evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in
any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly
unrealistic and unimaginative way.
11. These may be some of the reactions. There may be still
more. Even a man of prowess may become pusillanimous by
witnessing a serious crime. In this case, the courts below, in
our opinion, have taken into consideration of all those respects
and rightly did not insist upon the evidence from other
independent witnesses. The prosecution case cannot be
doubted or discarded for not examining strangers at the bus
stand who might have also witnessed the crime. We, therefore,
reject the first contention urged for the appellants. ”
63. In the light of the ratio of the above stated judgments, I am of the
opinion that the non-examination of the public witnesses or the
non-examination of the auto driver by the prosecution is not fatal
to the case of the prosecution as the testimony of the injured
coupled with the testimony of the medical witnesses PW4 and
PW5 fully establishes the case of the prosecution.
CONCLUSION
64. In the light of the above said discussion, I am of the opinion that
the prosecution has been able to prove beyond any reasonable
doubt that the accused Lakshay @ Lucky on 06.11.2022 at about
08:00-08:30 PM near auto stand Gandhi Vihar, Delhi caused stab
injury to the injured Vijay with knife and thus, committed the
offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. Accordingly, accused
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 36 of 37
Lakshay @ Lucky is convicted of the offence punishable under
Section 307 of the IPC.
65. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary formalities.
Announced in the Open Court RAJ Digitally signed by
RAJ KUMAR
(Order contains 37 pages) KUMAR Date: 2025.02.15
16:20:25 +0530
(Raj Kumar)
ASJ-05, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
15.02.2025
SC 82/2023 State Vs. Lakshay @ Lucky FIR no. 353/2022 PS Timarpur Page no. 37 of 37
[ad_1]
Source link