Delhi District Court
State vs Praveen @Toni on 30 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03/SPECIAL JUDGE (COMPANIES
ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
More than seven years old case
CNR No. : DLSW01-011866-2019
SC No. : 764/2019
State Vs. : Parveen @ Toni
FIR No. : 148/2017
P.S. : Dwarka Sector-23
U/S : 308/323 IPC
1. Date of commission of offence : 01.06.2017
2. Date of institution of the case : 26.03.2019
3. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 11.10.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Sh. Santosh Kumar
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : Parveen @ Toni
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o H. No.184,
VPO Bijwasan, Delhi.
6. Offences under which charges
were framed : 308/323 IPC
7. Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which arguments heard : 25.01.2025
9. Date of final order : 30.01.2025
10. Final order : Convicted
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 1 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. The criminal law machinery was set into motion on receiving
DD No. 4A dated 01.06.2017, PS Dwarka Sector 23 in which it was
recorded that caller had been stabbed by someone near Bharthal Mota
Dada Dev Mandir. The said DD was marked to SI Vijay Pal, who
along with HC Joginder reached at the spot i.e. empty field adjacent to
the road going from Bharthal to Bamnoli. One Kaushal i.e. friend of
the injured met SI Vijay Pal at the spot and informed that injured
Santosh (friend of Kaushal) had been shifted to hospital in an
ambulance. In the meanwhile, SI Vijay Pal received another DD
No.6B dated 01.06.2017, PS Dwarka Sector 23 regarding
hospitalization of injured Santosh at DDU Hospital.
2. SI Vijay Pal left HC Jogender at the spot and he went to DDU
hospital where he found injured Santosh admitted there. His MLC was
checked and the doctor opined that the injured was under observation
and the weapon used to inflict injuries upon Santosh was opined to be
sharp. Injured was stated to be fit to give statement. The statement of
injured Santosh was recorded by SI Vijay Pal wherein he stated that
he was a taxi driver and he was residing as a tenant in the house of
accused Praveen Kumar @ Toni along with his wife and the minor
daughter. Prior to the incident, complainant had seen the accused in
his room along with his wife once or twice. On 31.05.2017, in the
night, he along with his friend Kaushal and accused were coming back
home along with the complainant in his taxi car No. PB-01B-3391. At
around 2.00 AM, he along with Kaushal alighted his taxi at the road
between Bharthal and Bamnoli, near Neem Tree and started drinking
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 2 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
liquor. Accused also joined them. Complainant told the accused that
he had spoiled his house and he should have not come near his wife.
Accused got angry on the same and scuffled took place between them.
Accused brought vegetable knife from the car and stabbed the
complainant in his stomach due to which blood started oozing out.
While Kaushal was trying to pacify them, he also sustained injuries.
Accused fled away from the spot.
3. SI Vijay Pal seized the blood stained shirt of the injured which
was duly sealed with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital. Thereafter, he
came back at the spot and crime team was called. Spot was inspected
by the crime team.
4. On the basis of complaint given by injured Santosh, SI Vijay
Pal prepared rukka and got the FIR under Section 308 IPC registered
through HC Joginder. Thereafter HC Joginder came back to the spot
and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to SI Vijay Pal pursuant to
which he lifted the exhibits from the spot i.e. one stone of cement and
concrete, blood lying on the spot and earth control, all these exhibits
were seized by him and were duly sealed with the seal of VP. One
plastic disposable glass, two empty Halidiram salted peanuts
wrappers, one empty Halidiram hing chana wrapper, four buttons of a
shirt, bunch of hair which were lying at the spot were also kept in
different pulandas which were sealed with the seal of VP. One broken
handle of knife was also lying on the spot which was also duly sealed.
SI Vijay Pal prepared the site plan at the instance of Kaushal. One fiat
Punto car was also seized from near Seema Clinic Kapashera,
Bijwasan by SI Vijay Pal. The case property was deposited on the
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 3 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
Malkhana. He recorded the statement of witnesses.
5. On 02.06.2017, he along with Ct. Mahesh went in search of the
accused and accused was arrested from his house. His personal search
was conducted. He tried to search the front portion of the knife by
taking the accused near the spot but the same could not be found.
Accused was medically examined and his blood sample was taken.
The exhibits were sent to FSL.
6. After completion of investigation, Chargesheet was prepared
and filed in the Court. After compliance of section 207/208 Cr.P.C, the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charges
7. Charge under Section 308/323 IPC was framed against accused
on 20.01.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
8. Prosecution cited as many as 18 witnesses out of which 14
witnesses have been examined. Statement of accused under Section
294 Cr.P.C was recorded on 20.09.2023 and 10.01.2025 wherein he
admitted the FIR No.148/2017; certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act; DD No.4A dated 01.06.2017, DD No.6B dated
01.06.2017; Medical Examination No. 7146 of Kaushal of DDU
Hospital; MLC No. 004227 of injured Santosh Kumar of DDU
Hospital, M.E. No.7194; FSL Report No.2017/B-9193 dated
29.12.2017; FSL Report dated 14.11.2018 and X-ray report dated
01.06.2017 of injured Santosh Kumar as Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX10. The
witnesses pertaining to these documents i.e. witnesses mentioned at
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 4 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
Serial No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the list of prosecution witnesses, were
dropped.
9. PW-1 Sh. Santosh Kumar is the complainant/injured. He
deposed as under:
“Ram Kumar was my landlord. At the time of incident, I
used to reside at Village Bijwasan, Budh Bazar, Delhi since
last 3-4 years from the date of incident. I am the permanent
residence of above mentioned address of U.P. At the time of
incident, I was working as taxi driver. Accused Praveen is
the son of my landlord Ram Kumar. Accused asked me to
drive his taxi in partnership. While I was driving the taxi of
the accused, after about 1 – 1.5 month, the said taxi met with
an accident and at that time I was driving the said taxi. The
taxi was repaired in 10-15 days. After about 1 – 1.5 month,
the said taxi again got met with an accident and at that time
accused Praveen was driving the taxi. Accused waited for 15
days for getting insurance amount. One day, I saw accused
in my room with my wife. Accused folded hands in front of
me and requested me not to tell this fact to anyone. I send
my wife and my children to my house in U.P.Thereafter, I was still an employee of accused and used to
drive his taxi and nothing changed.
After about 10-15 days, I along with Kaushal who was my
neighbour, went for a ride and to drink liquor and we
reached near Mote Dada Mandir, Bamdoli. We started
drinking there. Again said, I along with Kaushal and
accused Praveen went in the taxi.
I was having some monetary talks with the accused
regarding my salary. Father of accused used to torture me
for the demand of rent. I went into a scuffle with accused
and accused started abusing me. There was a knife in the
car. Accused Praveen took the said knife and gave me a
knife blow and while saving myself, I got a cut on my right
hand and during the scuffle I got another knife blow in my
stomach by accused. The incident took place near the car in
open ground at about 12:00 Midnight. I do not remember
the date of incident.
I made a call at 100 number from my mobile phone. Within
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 5 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
15-20 minutes, PCR reached at the spot. Both Kaushal and
Praveen ran away from the spot. Police shifted me to DDU
Hospital, where my statement was recorded by IO, same is
now Ex.PW1/A bears my signature at point A. I was
admitted in the hospital for 2 days. After 2 days, I came to
PS Dwarka Sector 23 to know about the case. I stayed in the
room for about 3-4 days. I requested the accused to let me
vacate the room but he did not permitted me. After one
week, I vacated my room with the help of my near and dear
ones. Some of my articles were left in the room.
Accused Praveen is present in the Court today (Correctly
identified).
I can identify the taxi, if shown to me.
At this stage, photographs of taxi bearing no. PB-01-B-3391
are shown to witness and witness correctly identified the
same, same are now Ex.P1 (Colly).”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
10. PW-2 Sh. Kaushal is another injured. He deposed as under:
“I do not remember the date of incident. I used to reside in a
room situated adjacent to the room of Santosh. Manohar
was my landlord. Santosh brought a new car and I along
with Santosh and accused, who is present in the Court today
(correctly identified) went for a party. The name of accused
is Praveen @ Toni. We went for a party in the middle of
Barthal and Bijwasan. It was about 12:00 Midnight – 01:00
AM and we were drinking at that time. I received a call
from my house and I went aside. In the meanwhile, Santosh
took a stone and also a knife tried to hit Praveen @ Toni. In
the meanwhile, accused Toni took out the knife. Again said,
Santosh took out the knife.
A scuffle took place between the Santosh and accused
Praveen. Santosh received injuries in his stomach, Praveen
sustained injuries on his legs and I sustained injuries on my
shoulder. Santosh made a call to police. Praveen ran away
from spot in the car. Police reached at the spot. I narrated
the entire incident to police. My statement was recorded by
police.”
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 6 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
Since PW-2 did not support the case of prosecution and turned
hostile, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but
nothing incriminating came in the cross examination of PW-2
conducted by ld. Addl. PP for the State.
11. PW-3 Sh. Gaganpreet Singh Dhillon deposed as under:
“I am a transporter by profession. I am the registered owner
of Fiat Punto bearing registration No.PB-01-B-3391. I had
purchased the said car in January, 2017. the said car is
having a commercial number/taxi number. I had given the
said car to accused Praveen @ Toni as he had got my car
hired to Convergis at Gurugram. I had handed over him the
said car just after purchasing the same. I can identify my
car if shown to me.
At this stage, the photographs of Fiat Punto bearing
registration No.PB-01-B-3391, which are already exhibited
as Ex.PW1/B (Colly.) are shown to the witness and witness
identifies the same.
I had got released the said car on superdari vide
superdarinama which is Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at
point-A on each page.”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
12. PW-4 HC Sandeep Kumar deposed as under:
“On 03.06.2017 I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector-23. On
that day, I joined the investigation of this case alongwith
IO/SI Vijay Pal. During investigation, I went to DDU
Hospital alongwith accused Parveen @ Toni where medical
examination of accused was got conducted. The blood
sample of accused was preserved by the concerned doctor
and the same was handed over by the concerned doctor to
me. I alongwith the accused came to Dwarka Courts and
the accused was produced before the concerned Magistrate
where the accused was remanded to judicial custody. The
blood sample of accused was handed over to the IO by me
at Dwarka Court which was seized by the IO vide seizureSC No.764/2019 Page No. 7 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
memo Ex.PW4/A bearing my signature at point-A. Accused
Parveen @ Toni is present in the court today (correctly
identified). My statement under Section 161 CrPC was
recorded by the IO.”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
13. PW-5 HC Amrik Singh deposed as under:
“On 28.11.2017, I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector 23
Dwarka as Constable. On that day, I was directed by the
IO/SI Vijay Pal to go to FSL Rohini for depositing the case
property. I took the case property from the MHC(M) along
with road certificate No. 76/21/17 and deposited the same to
the FSL Rohini for examination. I was also given an
acknowledgment receipt of the same. The said receipt is
Mark X. During the time the case property was in my
possession, it was in my safe custody and it was not
tampered at any point of time.
Thereafter, I came back to the PS and handed over the
receipt and copy of road certificate to the MHC(M). The
copy of said road certificate is Ex.PW5/A. My statement
under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO.”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
14. PW-6 HC Satish deposed as under:
“On 04.04.2018, I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector 23
Dwarka as Constable. On that day, I was directed by the
IO/SI Vijay Pal to go to FSL Rohini for depositing the case
property. I took the case property from the MHC(M) along
with road certificate No. 35/21/18 and deposited the same to
the FSL Rohini for examination. I was also given an
acknowledgment receipt of the same. During the time the
case property was in my possession, it was in my safe
custody and it was not tampered at any point of time.
Thereafter, I came back to the PS and handed over the
receipt and copy of road certificate to the MHC(M). The
copy of said road certificate is Ex.PW6/A. My statement
under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO.”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 8 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
15. PW-7 ASI Samunder Singh deposed as under:
“On 01.06.2017, I was posted as MHC(M) at PS Dwarka
Sector 23. On that day, SI Vijay Pal handed over the case
property of the present case. IO deposited the said case
property i.e. two parcels and one sample seal in the
Malkhana vide MUD No. 1976. On the same day, SI Vijay
Pal also deposited a car bearing registration No.
PB-01B-3391 in the malkhana vide MUD No. 1978. On the
same day, another case property in a sealed condition which
was also deposited by SI Vijay Pal vide MUD No. 1978.
On 03.06.2017, SI Vijay Pal again handed over the case
property i.e. clothes of the accused and some plastic box.
Same were deposited in the malkhana vide MUD No. 1980.
On 28.11.2017, total seven parcels were sent to FSL for its
examination through Const. Amreek vide RC No. 76/21/17.
On the same day, during evening hours, Const. Amreek
came back to the PS and handed over to me receipt No.
9133. On 22.01.2018, I went to RFSL, Chanakya Puri and
got seven parcels from there and deposited the same in
malkhana.
Today, I have brought the relevant record. MUD No. 1976,
1978 and 1980 are Ex.PW7/A (OSR) (colly). The Road
Certificate No. 76/21/17 is Ex.PW7/B (OSR) bearing my
signature at point A. The receipt of the acknowledgement of
the case property by FSL is Ex.PW7/C. ”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
16. PW-8 Dr. Dinesh Varshney deposed as under:
“I am posted in DDU Hospital since August 2011. Presently,
I am working there as Senior Medical Officer. On
01.06.2017, I was posted at DDU Hospital as Casualty
Medical Officer and Dr. Jalaj, who was working as Junior
Resident in the hospital under my supervision. I can identify
the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Jalaj as I have seen
him writing and signing in due course of his duties. The
MLC No. 7146 of injured Kaushal is in the handwriting of
Dr. Jalaj and bears his signature at point A. The said MLC
also bears my name at point B. The said MLC is already Ex.
PX5.
Dr. Jalaj had left the hospital and his whereabouts is not
known to me. ”
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 9 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
17. PW-9 Ct. Mahesh Kumar deposed as under:
“On 02.06.2017, I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector 23. On
that day, I joined investigation of the present case along with
IO/SI Vijay Pal. I along with IO/SI Vijay Pal went to
Bijwasan Village at H. No. 184, near Masjid there we saw
accused Praveen @ Toni. He was arrested by the IO vide
arrest memo Ex.PW9/A bearing my signature at point A.
Information of his arrest was given to his father. Personal
search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/B
bearing my signature at point A. Disclosure statement of the
accused was recorded by the IO. Accused was taken to DDU
Hospital where his medical examination got conducted. He
was produced before the concerned court and his one day
PC remand was taken by the IO. Weapon of offence i.e.
broken knife was searched but it was not traceable. My
statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO.
Accused Praveen @ Toni is present in the court and
correctly identified by the witness. ”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
18. PW-10 HC Joginder Singh deposed as under:
“In the intervening night of 31.05/01.06.2017, I was posted
at PS Dwarka Sector 23. On that day, my duty timings were
from 08:00 pm to 8:00 am. I was on emergency duty along
with SI Vijay Pal. At about 3:00 am, he received a call
regarding a person injured on the Bharthal-Bamnoli road
and having knife stab injuries. I along with IO reached the
spot. We came to know that one of the injured had already
been shifted to hospital. There we met another person who
told us that he is friend of injured who was also in injured
condition. From the spot, it was clear that a quarrel had
taken place at the spot. There were broken glasses, empty
packets of namkeen and blood spots were there at 2-3 spots.
One stone was also found lying there having blood stains on
it. Broken buttons of the shirt and hairs of a human being
were also found lying at the spot. One handle of a knife of
black colour was also found lying at the spot. I remained at
the spot and IO along with the friend of injured went to the
hospital. After some time, IO along with both the injured
persons reached the spot. IO prepared the rukka and sent meSC No.764/2019 Page No. 10 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
to PS for registration of FIR.
Thereafter, I went to the PS and handed over the rukka to
DO. DO handed over me copy of FIR and the original rukka
to me. I again came back to the spot and handed over both
the documents to the IO. Site-plan was prepared by the IO at
the instance of the complainant, same was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at point A.
Sketch of the knife was prepared in my presence vide memo
Ex.PW10/B bearing my signature at point A. A stone having
blood stains, earth control and blood stained earth were
seized by the IO in my presence vide seizure memo
Ex.PW10/C bearing my signature at point A. One disposal
glass and haldiram namkeen salted peanut packets, haldiram
moong heeng chana packets, broken buttons of shirt and
hairs lying at the spot were seized by the IO vide seizure
memo Ex.PW10/D bearing my signature at point A. The
handle of the knife was seized by the IO in my presence
vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/E bearing my signature at
point A. My statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was
recorded by the IO.
The car bearing registration No. PB 01B 3391 was seized by
the IO in my presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F
bearing my signature at point A.
I can identify the car, if shown to me.
At this stage, photographs of the car bearing registration No.
PB 01B 3391 are shown to the witness. Witness correctly
identifies the same. The same are already Ex.PW1/B (colly).
I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
white sealed cloth parcel No. 1 duly sealed with the seal of
GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the
permission of the court and contains blood stained stone.
Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the
spot. The same is Ex. P-1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 2 duly sealed with the seal of
GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the
permission of the court and contains one plastic box duly
taped with a doctor tape. Same is opened with the
permission of the court and contains dark stained soil.
Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the
spot. The same is Ex. P-2.
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 11 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 3 duly sealed with the seal of
GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the
permission of the court and one plastic box duly taped with
a doctor tape. Same is opened with the permission of the
court and contains earth control. Witness correctly identifies
the same as recovered from the spot. The same is Ex. P-3.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 4 duly sealed with the seal of
GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the
permission of the court and contains one plastic box duly
taped with a doctor tape. Same is opened with the
permission of the court and contains hairs found lying at the
spot. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered
from the spot. The same is Ex. P-4.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 05 duly sealed with the seal of
GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the
permission of the court and contains shirt. Witness states
that he has no concern with the said case property.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 5 duly sealed with the seal of
GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the
permission of the court and contains broken piece of knife/
handle. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered
from the spot. The same is Ex. P-5.”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
19. PW-11 Insp. Rakesh Kumar deposed as under:
“On 01.06.2017, I was posted at Incharge Mobile Crime
Team, South West District, Sector 9, Dwarka. I received a
call from control room at about 5:45 am and I was asked to
reach on the road going towards Bamnoli to Dhulsiras, New
Delhi. I along with Photographer Const. Rakesh, Fingerprint
Expert ASI Nitin and Driver Const. Satpal reached the spot
and found that blood was lying on the side of the road and
on other places as well. Blood was also lying on the
concrete stone. Some empty snacks packets, disposable
plastic glass, buttons of the shirt, handle of a knife of black
colour and bunch of hairs were lying there. I inspected the
spot.
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 12 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
Thereafter, photographer took the photographs of the crime
scene. I prepared report No. 662/2017, same is Ex.PW11/A
bearing my name and signature at point A. I suggested the
IO to lift the exhibits from the spot. Thereafter I went to my
office. My statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded
by the IO.
At this stage, photographs of the spot are shown to the
witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. The
photographs (14 in number) are Ex.PW11/B (colly).
Witness states that the said photographs were clicked by Ct.
Rakesh. ”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
20. PW-12 HC Rakesh Kumar deposed as under:
“On 01.06.2017 I was posted as Photographer in Mobile
Crime Team, South West District, Sector-9, Dwarka. On that
day, Incharge SI Rakesh received a call from the Control
Room. Thereafter, I alongwith SI Rakesh, driver and one
fingerprint expert went to the spot i.e. DDA land on the road
going from Barthal to Bamnauli. I took photographs of the
spot from different angles. The photographs were handed
over to the IO. Today I have brought the negatives of the
said photographs. I can identify the said photographs, if
shown to me.
At this stage, photographs Ex.PW11/B are shown to the
witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. The
negatives of the said photographs are now exhibited as
Ex.PW12/A (colly). ”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
21. PW-13 Insp. Vijay Pal is the investigating officer. He deposed
as under:
“On the intervening night of 31st May and 01st June, 2017 I
was posted at PS Dwarka Sector-23 as Sub-Inspector and
was on night emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. I
received DD No.4A with regard to person sustaining stab
injuries. I alongwith HC Joginder reached the spot i.e. on an
empty field adjacent to the road going from Barthal to
Bamnauli. There we met Kaushal Kumar who informed me
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 13 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
that his friend Santosh Kumar had sustained stab injuries
and had been shifted to hospital in an ambulance. I also
received DD No.6B with regard to the injured Santosh
admitted in DDU hospital. I left HC Joginder at the spot and
I went to DDU hospital where I found injured Santosh
Kumar admitted there. His MLC was checked and the
doctor opined the nature of injuries ‘under observation’ and
kind of weapon as ‘sharp’. I moved an application to the
concerned doctor to know whether the patient was fit to give
statement, to which the doctor opined in affirmative. The
said application is Ex.PW13/A bearing my signature at
point-A.
Thereafter, I recorded statement of injured Santosh. I seized
the exhibits i.e. blood stained blue shirt and one pullanda
containing blood in gauge piece in sealed condition with
seal of CMO DDU hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B
bearing my signature at point-A.
Thereafter, I came back to the spot. Crime team was called
at the spot. Spot was inspected by the crime team. I
prepared a rukka which is Ex.PW13/C bearing my
signature at point-A. The rukka was handed over to HC
Joginder who went to the PS for registration of FIR. After
some time, HC Joginder came back to the spot and handed
over the copy of FIR and original rukka to me. Thereafter, I
lifted exhibits from the spot i.e. one stone of cement and
concrete, blood lying at the spot, earth control and seized
the same vide memo Ex.PW10/C bearing my signature at
point-B. All the said case property were sealed in different
pullandas with the seal of ‘VP’. One plastic disposal glass,
two empty haldiram salted peanut wrappers, one empty
haldiram hing chana wrapper, four buttons of a shirt, a
bunch of hair, which were lying at the spot, were kept in
different pullandas, sealed with the seal of VP and seized
vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D bearing my signature at
point-B. One broken handle of knife was lying at the spot.
The sketch of the same was prepared which is already
exhibited as Ex.PW10/B bearing my signature at point-B.
The same was seized vide memo Ex.PW10/E bearing my
signature at point-B. Site plan Ex.PW10/B was prepared at
the instance of Kaushal Kumar, which bears my signature
at point-B. Accused was searched but he was not traceable.
One Fiat Punto was recovered from near Seema Clinic,
Kapashera, Bijwasan which were seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW10/F bearing my signature at point-B. The caseSC No.764/2019 Page No. 14 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
property was deposited in the malkhana. I recorded
statement of witnesses.
On 02.06.2017 I alongwith Ct. Mahesh went in search of
accused. We went to the house of accused Parveen @ Toni
i.e. H.No.184, near Masjid, Village Bijwasan, New Delhi. I
interrogated the accused Parveen @ Toni and arrested him
vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A bearing my signature at point-
B. His personal search was conducted vide memo
Ex.PW9/B bearing my signature at point-B. Disclosure
statement of the accused was recorded. I took the accused
near the spot in search of metallic blade i.e. the front portion
of the knife but the same was not found. After the medical
examination of the accused, accused was produced before
the concerned Court and one day PC remand of the accused
was taken.
On 03.06.2017 accused was taken again for his medical
examination where his blood sample was collected from
DDU hospital in a pullanda duly sealed with the seal of
‘CMO DDU Hosp. N.Delhi’ which was seized by me vide
seizure memo Ex.PW4/A bearing my signature at point-B.
Accused was produced before the concerned Court and was
sent to J/C.The exhibits were sent to FSL. I recorded statement of the
witnesses. I took steps to take opinion on the MLC but
since the injured left the hospital against the medical advice,
the opinion on the MLC could not be taken. The car was
released on superdari. I can identify the Fiat Punto car if
shown to me. At this stage, photograph of Fiat Punto car
bearing Reg. No.PB01B3391 are shown to the witness.
Witness correctly identifies the same. Same is already
Ex.PW1/B (Colly).
Accused Parveen @ Toni is present in the Court today.
(Correctly identified by the witness).
I can identify the photographs of the spot, if shown to me.
At this stage, photographs Ex.PW11/B (Colly) are shown to
the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same.
I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
white sealed cloth parcel No. 1 duly sealed with the seal of
Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and
contains blood stained stone. Witness correctly identifies the
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 15 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
same as recovered from the spot. The same is already Ex.
P-1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 2 duly sealed with the seal of
Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and
contains one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same
is opened with the permission of the court and contains dark
stained soil. Witness correctly identifies the same as
recovered from the spot. The same is already Ex. P-2.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 3 duly sealed with the seal of
Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and
one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same is
opened with the permission of the court and contains earth
control. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered
from the spot. The same is already Ex. P-3.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 4 duly sealed with the seal of
Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and
contains one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same
is opened with the permission of the court and contains hairs
found lying at the spot. Witness correctly identifies the same
as recovered from the spot. The same is already Ex. P-4.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is
yellow envelope parcel No. 5 duly sealed with the seal of
Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and
contains broken piece of knife/ handle. Witness correctly
identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is
already Ex. P-5.
I prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the Court.”
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
22. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. An application
under Section 311 Cr PC was moved by the Ld. Addl PP for the State
in order to summons Dr Ankur Popat along with original MLC
No.4227 dated 01.07.2017 of injured Santosh from DDU Hospital.
The said application was allowed and Dr Ankur Popat was examined
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 16 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
as PW-14.
23. PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat, Surgery consultant, Ankur Hospital,
Gurugram, Haryana. He deposed as under:
“On the intervening night of 31.05.2017- 01.06.2017, he was
posted as Sr. Resident, Surgery Department, DDU Hospital,
Hari Nagar and on that day, his duty timing were from 08.00
PM to 08.00 AM. He further deposed that at about 04.35
PM, patient Santosh Kumar came in causality and thereafter,
he was referred to surgery department by Dr. Pallavi and he
examined patient Santosh Kumar vide MLC no. 4227. He
further deposed that on examination he found out that there
was clean lacerated wound of size 2.5 X 0.5 cm elliptical in
shape on left side chest alongwith skin loss over the right
palm. He further deposed that on wound exploration, no
pleural breach or rib facture was present, depth of the chest
injury was approx 1 cm and patient was admitted for
observation but he left against medical advise, hence,
opinion was not given on the said MLC Ex. PW14/A(OSR)
by him and in his opinion the nature of injuries were simple
in nature.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC & Defence Evidence
24. Statement under Section 313 CPC of the accused was recorded
wherein all the incriminating evidence which came on record during
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses has been put to him, which
the accused denied and stated that he has been falsely implicated in
this case by police. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Arguments on behalf of parties
25. Ld. Addl.PP for the State has argued that PW-1 Santosh Kumar
(injured) has proved that accused had stabbed him in his stomach with
a knife. Ld. Addl.PP has further argued that handle of the knife was
recovered from the spot itself which also corroborates the testimony of
PW-1. The testimony of PW-1 is further corroborated by the testimony
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 17 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
of PW-2 Kaushal to the effect that injured was stabbed with a knife.
He has further argued that MLC of the injured has been proved by
PW-8 Dr. Dinesh Varshney and PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat. As per the
testimony PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat, the nature of the injuries were
simple in nature. Ld. Addl. PP has further argued that it is immaterial
as to whether the injuries were simple or grievous. The intention of the
accused while inflicting injuries have to be seen. He has further
injuries that injuries were inflicted by the accused with a deadly
weapon i.e. knife in his stomach i.e. vital part of the body of the
injured and, therefore, the charges under section 307 IPC against the
accused are clearly proved and he be convicted under section 307 IPC.
26. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has pointed out that
simple reading of the testimony of PW-1 Santosh Kumar and PW-2
Kaushal clearly show that PW-1 Santosh was the aggressor. He further
argued that testimony would reveal that he had taken PW-2 Kaushal
and the accused in his car and he provoked the accused due to which
the scuffle took place. Ld. Counsel has argued that there was no pre
meditation and intention of the accused to inflict any kind of injuries
upon the injured. Ld. Counsel has further argued that PW-13 Insp.
Vijay Pal has deposed that site-plan was prepared at the instance of
PW-2 Kaushal but the site-plan does not bear the signature of Kaushal.
He has further argued that, in his cross-examination, PW-13 Insp.
Vijay Kumar admitted that handle of the knife was lying at the spot
and it was not seized at anybody’s instance and was not shown to the
complainant or his friend Kaushal. Ld. Counsel has further argued that
prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt and accused be acquitted.
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 18 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
27. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record
carefully.
28. The case of prosecution is based on ocular testimony. PW-1 is
the injured himself and PW-2 is the friend of injured as well as eye-
witness to the incident. The law relating to ocular testimony has been
discussed in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. The State
of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2017 decided on
14.07.2022, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that :
“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 someSC No.764/2019 Page No. 19 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
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 permit 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 onSC No.764/2019 Page No. 20 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
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 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 the 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.”
29. In view of the parameters on which the testimony of eye
witness is to be tested, as laid down above, the testimony of
complainant / injured is hereinafter appreciated.
30. PW-1 is the injured and PW-2 Kaushal is the friend of the
injured. Accused Praveen @ Toni is the son of his (injured) landlord
Ram Kumar. PW-1 deposed that he saw accused Praveen @ Toni in
his room with his wife before the alleged incident. PW-1 sent his wife
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 21 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
and children to his native village. He continued to work as an
employee of the accused and used to drive his taxi. None of these facts
have been disputed or challenged in the cross examination of PW-1.
There is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid deposition. Therefore,
these facts stand proved leaving no room for doubt.
31. PW-1 had further deposed that on the date of incident, he
(injured) along with his friend PW-2 Kaushal and accused Praveen @
Toni went in his taxi to take a ride and when they reached near Mota
Dada Mandir, Bamnoli, they alighted the car and started drinking
liquor on the road. The testimony of PW-2 also corroborates the
deposition of PW-1 regarding this fact. PW-2 had deposed he along
with injured and accused had gone for a ride on the date of incident
and they stopped in the middle of Bharthal and Bijwasan and started
drinking liquor there. PW-2 was not cross examined by ld. Counsel for
accused. The aforesaid testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly proves
beyond any doubt that on the date of incident, the injured, PW-2
Kaushal and accused Praveen @ Toni were present together and had
drunk liquor in the middle of the road. PW-1 had further deposed that
the he and the accused entered into the arguments about his salary due
to which a scuffle took place and accused started abusing him. It is
relevant to note that reason for scuffle mentioned in deposition of
PW-1 was salary whereas in the tehrir Ex.PW1/A, the reason
mentioned was the closeness of accused with wife of injured. But the
fact remains that scuffle took place between them for some reason. No
question/ suggestion denying the scuffle between injured and accused
was put to PW-1. This testimony of PW-1 is further testified from the
fortified from the testimony of PW-2 Kaushal, who also deposed that
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 22 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
scuffle took place between accused and injured. PW-2 was not cross
examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. Hence this fact stands duly
established.
32. PW-1 further deposed that there was a knife in the car and
accused took out the knife and gave him a knife blow in his stomach
and while saving himself, he (injured) also sustained a cut in his right
hand. During his cross-examination, PW-1 was suggested that the
accused was not present at the spot and injuries were inflicted upon
him by PW-2 Kaushal with a knife, which was denied by him. No
such suggestion of inflicting injuries by Kaushal were put to Kaushal,
who deposed as PW-2. Merely giving this suggestion to PW-1 is
inconsequential. The presence of the accused at the spot already stands
proved as the deposition to the effect that all three of them (PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3) were together and had drunk liquor in the middle of
the road has been duly established. PW-1 successfully withstood the
rigours of cross-examination. The testimony of PW-1 is found to be
cogent and reliable.
33. In respect of inflicting injuries, PW-2 had deposed that PW-1
took the stone and knife and tried to hit the accused and in the
meanwhile, accused Praveen @ Toni also took out a knife and scuffle
took place between injured Santosh and accused Praveen @ Toni. In
the same breath, PW-2 changed his version and deposed that PW-1
took out the knife. The deposition of PW-2 that PW-1 took the knife
and tried to hit the accused is not at all trustworthy as it is not even the
defence of accused. Nowhere in the cross examination of PW-1,
accused had taken a stand that PW-1 attempted to hit the accused with
stone or a knife. The stand taken is that accused was not present and
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 23 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
PW-2 had inflicted knife injuries upon PW-1. Therefore, this part of
the testimony of PW-2 is insignificant. From the testimony of PW-2,
following facts are clearly proved:
(1) Accused was present at the port along with PW-1 and PW-2.
(2) Scuffle took place between accused and PW-1.
(3) PW-1 sustained injuries in his stomach.
(4) Knife was used to inflict injury upon PW-1.
No case of self infliction of injury by injured in his stomach has been
set up by accused.
34. The reading of all these facts together leads to only one
inescapable conclusion that accused had stabbed the injured PW-1 in
his stomach with a knife. These facts has been duly proved by PW-1
in his testimony which has already been found to be cogent and
reliable.
35. MLC of the injured Santosh was admitted by accused in his
statement under Section 294 Cr.PC as Ex.PX4 as per which he had
sustained lacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm, however, it was stated
that depth was to be assessed by surgery department. The weapon used
in inflicting injuries was stated to be sharp. He was thereafter referred
to surgery department. PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat examined him in
surgery department and he found out a clean lacerated wound of 2.5
cm x 0.5 cm elliptical in shape on left side chest along with skin loss
over right palm. PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat deposed that no pleural
breach or rib fracture was present. He opined that the nature of injuries
sustained by injured were simple in nature. The MLC of the injured
Santosh clearly establishes that injuries were inflicted with a sharp
weapon. Thus, the joint reading of testimony of PW-1 and PW-2
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 24 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
coupled with the medical evidence establishes beyond any doubt that
accused Praveen @ Toni had stabbed the injured Santosh with a knife
in his stomach.
36. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that investigation has not
been done properly in the present case. He has argued that PW-13
Insp. Vijay Pal had deposed that he found some empty snacks packets,
disposable plastic glass, buttons of the shirt, handle of a knife of black
colour and bunch of hairs. Ld. Counsel has further argued that no
fingerprints from the handle of the knife were taken. These empty
snacks packets, disposable plastic glass, buttons of the shirt, etc. were
not seized by the IO at anyone’s instance. Even the handle of the knife
was not seized at the instance of complainant or that of eye witness
Kaushal Kumar.
37. The submissions made by Ld. counsel for accused in respect of
shoddy investigation are absolutely true which is apparent from the
face of record. The IO has been irresponsible throughout the
investigation. When the exhibits containing the blood stained earth
control, blood stained shirt of victim along with other exhibits were
sent to FSL, only blood of accused was sent along with them, which
could not have matched with the blood lying on the road and exhibits
lifted from the spot as the accused did not bleed at all. These exhibits
were again sent to FSL with blood sample of the victim but nothing
could come in the examination as the blood on the exhibits was
already exposed to air when it were opened for the first time by FSL.
38. In the present case, eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) have
categorically narrated the role of accused in inflicting the injuries
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 25 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
which is found to be consistent and reliable as discussed in the
preceding paras. Undoubtedly, the investigation conducted by the IO
in the present case is very shoddy, however, the material case of
prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the
ocular testimonies of eye-witnesses. Hence, even if the investigation is
not conducted properly, it is not fatal to the prosecution at all.
Reliance in this regard is placed on “C. Muniappan vs. State of T.N.”
(2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein it was held as under:
“55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case.
However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any
lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit
should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well
settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be
a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed
or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by
perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the
people in the criminal justice administration would be
eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the
investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in
defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the
part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors
such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence
is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to
whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the
truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for
judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the
trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the
probity of investigation.”
Hence, this argument of ld. Counsel for accused is not tenable
at all.
39. Now, it is to be seen that whether non recovery of weapon of
offence is fatal to the prosecution case. In this regard, it is noted that
the ocular testimony of the witnesses is on a very higher pedestal.
Since the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (injured and the eye-witness)
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 26 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
have been found to be consistent and reliable in respect of the role of
the accused in committing the offence, therefore, the fact that the
prosecution has failed to recover the weapon of offence does not make
the prosecution story unbelievable. In any case, recovery of weapon of
offence is not a sine qua non for establishing the conviction. Hence,
same is not fatal to the prosecution case.
40. The issue which needs judicial consideration is that whether on
the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, the offence
punishable under section 308 IPC is actually made out or not.
41. In order to constitute an offence under Section 308 IPC, it is to
be proved that the said act was committed by the accused with the
intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and that the offence was committed under such circumstances
that if the accused, by that act, had caused death, he would have been
guilty of culpable homicide.
42. As per the MLC, following injuries were observed on the
person of injured:
(i) CLW 2.5×0.5 cms elliptical in shape seen over the exterior lower
aspect.
(ii) Injury on left side of the chest – depth to be assessed by surgery
department.
(iii) Skin loss over the right palm along with the ulner border.
43. The intention or knowledge of the accused is to be culled out
from the facts and circumstances in which injuries were caused to the
injured. It is clear from the evidence on record that PW-1 and accused
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 27 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
were peacefully drinking liquor together and, therefore, none of them
had gathered at the spot with the intention to cause harm to the other.
A scuffle took place all of a sudden and the accused inflicted injuries
on his stomach with a knife. The nature of injuries suffered by PW-1
were opined to be simple caused by a sharp object, though on the vital
part of body. But on wound exploration, no pleural effusion was
found. Apparently, the injuries were not caused with the avowed
intention or knowledge to cause his death.
44. In “Ramesh vs. State” 2010 (I) JCC 796, Hon’ble Delhi High
Court altered the conviction from 308/34 to 323/34 by holding that
assault was not premeditated and merely because an injury was found
on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the
intention to commit culpable homicide.
45. In “Raju @ Rajpal and Ors. vs. State of Delhi” 2014 (3) JC
1894, Hon’ble Delhi High Court altered the conviction from Section
308 to 323/34 by holding that the nature of injuries were simple and
injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to
cause death.
46. As a sequitur of the foregoing, this court is of the considered
view that prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused for
the minor offence under section 324 IPC, but no charge for the said
offence has been framed. In these circumstances, Section 222 (3) of
Cr.PC gains significance.
47. Section 222 of Cr.PC provides as under :
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 28 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
“222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
(1) When a person is charged with an offence
consisting of several particulars, a combination of some
only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and
such combination is proved, but the remaining
particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the
minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts
are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be
convicted of the minor offence, although he is not
charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may
be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence
although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise
a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions
requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of
that minor offence have not been satisfied.
Illustrations : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
48. In Shamsahib M. Multani Vs. State of Karnataka 2001 (2) SCC
577, the court held :
“What is meant by a ‘minor offence’ for the purpose of
section 222 the code? Although the said expression is
not defined in the Code it can be discerned from the
context that the test of minor offence is not merely that
the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence.
The two illustrations provided in the section would bring
the above point home well. Only if the two offences are
cognate offence, wherein the main ingredients are
common, the one punishable among them with a lesser
sentence can be regarded as minor offence vis-a-vis the
other offence.”
49. Section 324 IPC is a minor offence to the offence u/s 308 IPC
and hence accused is held guilty of the said offence u/s 324 IPC.
50. It is pertinent to mention here that the charges under Section
323 IPC were also framed against the accused besides Section 308
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 29 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
IPC for inflicted injuries upon PW-2 Kaushal, however, nothing has
come in evidence to support of the prosecution case regarding injury
sustained by PW-2. Even PW-2 did not say that he received any injury.
Therefore, it stands unproved.
Conclusion
51. Hence accused Praveen @ Toni is held guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 324 IPC in the present FIR No. 148/2017,
PS Dwarka Sector 23.
Digitally signed Announced in open court VANDANA by VANDANA JAIN on 30.01.2025 JAIN Date: 2025.01.30 16:00:15 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
Note: This judgment contains thirty (30) pages and having my
signature on each page.
Digitally signed
by VANDANA
VANDANA JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.30
16:00:22 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 30 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
[ad_1]
Source link