Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 31 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SHARMA VATS, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04: SHAHDARA: KKD COURTS: DELHI.
CNR No.DLSH01-007333-2017
SC No. 370/2017
FIR No. 94/2017
U/s 307/34 IPC
PS: Seema Puri
State
Vs.
1. Sonu S/o Masicharan
R/o E-52/108, Aradhak Nagar, Seemapuri,
Border Delhi.
2. Monu S/o Masicharan
R/o E-52/108, Aradhak Nagar, Seemapuri,
Border Delhi.
3. Sunder S/o Masicharan
R/o E-52/108, Aradhak Nagar, Seemapuri,
Border Delhi.
Date of committal in the Court of Sessions : 10.11.2017
Final Arguments concluded on : 15.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 31.05.2025
Final Order : Accused persons-
Convicted
u/Sec.307 read with 34
IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Present accused persons namely Sonu, Monu and Sunder have been
arraigned as accused to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section
307/34 IPC.
Succinctly stated the facts of the case as per the Prosecution are that
on 20.02.2017 at about 09:30 pm, complainant Suraj along with his brother
namely Ram was coming back from Seemapuri Gym and when they reached near
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 1/60
Aradhak Border, three of their relatives/accused persons namely Sonu, Monu and
Sunder (all three are brothers), with whom there was some ongoing tensino, were
standing over there; that they threatened him that they will teach a lesson to them.
It is further stated that thereafter, accused Monu grabbed him while accused
Sunder and Sonu repeatedly hit Suraj with a knife and a sharp edged weapon with
an intention to kill him and when Suraj’s brother Ram tried to intervene, they also
stabbed him as well, with the said knife and the sharp edged weapon; thereafter,
all the three accused fled away the scene of crime.
The abovestated statement of the complainant Suraj, got culminated
into the present case FIR registered for an offence punishable under Section
307/34 IPC.
I. INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS:-
2. Perusal of the Chargesheet reveals that IO has stated that he along
with Ct. Yogender went to the GTB Hospital where the injured Ram was
examined and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded; that he had
repeated the version of other injured i.e. Suraj; Thereafter, Dr. handed over one
sealed plastic jar to him (IO) in which the iron patti which got struck in the body
of injured Ram, was sealed by the doctor. The plastic jar was taken into
possession and was deposited in malkhana. Then, search of the accused persons
was made and all the accused persons were found present at their house i.e.
E-52/108, Aradhak Nagar, Delhi and accordingly, they were apprehended.
Upon filing of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Ld. Trial
Court and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons. Thereafter,
the file was committed to Ld. Sessions Court, since an offence punishable under
Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
The then Ld. Predecessor Court framed charge against the accused
persons for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and the said charge
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 2/60
was read over and explained to them in vernacular, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
II. EVIDENCE LED BY PROSECUTION:-
3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused persons
Sonu, Monu and Sunder, for the offence punishable U/s 307/34 IPC, the
Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. The following are some relevant
excerpts from the testimony of the witnesses:-
i. PW1, Statement of Sh. Ram (one of the injured):- He deposed that
he was residing at the given address (Aradhak Nagar, Dilshad Garden, Delhi) for
last twenty years and was working as a sweeper for the last twelve years; all the
accused persons who were present in the Court were correctly identified by the
witness and the witness stated that they were also residents of Aradhak Nagar;
that the accused persons were having enmity with his younger brother; that they
were residing as a tenant in the house of relative of accused persons; that on
20.02.2017, at about 09:30 pm, when he (PW-1 Ram) alongwith his brother
(Suraj) were coming from gym and when they reached near Chauraha, Aradhak
Nagar, accused persons met them and threatened them by saying that ” aaj ise
sabak sikha denge”; then, accused Monu caught hold of his brother Suraj from
back side and Sonu and Sunder had assaulted his brother Suraj with knife with
the intention to kill him; when he tried to save his brother, accused persons also
gave knife and sharp edged weapon blow on his back side; after causing injury,
accused persons ran away from the spot. The witness further deposed that the said
sharp edged knife remained stuck on his back and when accused tried to take out
the said weapon back, handle of the knife came out in the hand of accused and
sharp edged portion remained stuck on his back; that he alongwith his brother
went to the colony and someone including Pankaj took them to GTB hospitalFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 3/60
where they received treatment; that his blood stained cloth and sharp edged
weapon were taken into custody by police.
During witness’s deposition, MHC(M) had produced one sealed
transparent Jar sealed with the seal of hospital containing one sharp edged
weapon without handle and same was shown to the witness, seeing which the
witness replied that it was the same weapon (P1) which was used by accused
Sunder to cause injury on his back.
MHC(M) had also produced one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal
of hospital, pullanda was opened and found containing one pink colour T-shirt
having some brown stains and one cut present on the lower back side of T-shirt,
after seeing the same, the witness stated that it was the same T-shirt (P-2) which
he worn on the day of incident.
The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused
persons and during his cross-examination, the witness interalia deposed that he
was not discharged from the hospital on the same very day of his admission but
after 7 to 8 days, he was discharged and he again said that he does not remember
that how many days he remained in the hospital but he remained admitted for
some days. Witness admitted that neither he nor his brother had given any
information by dialing no. 100 to the police. He deposed that it was him and not
his brother who had gone to his house after the incident and his brother was not in
a position to move to the house from the spot; that he informed his father about
the incident; that it took about 4 to 5 minutes to reach his home from the spot and
immediately, he informed his father and they rushed to the spot; that his parents
and other neighbourer reached the spot; he had not made any call from the spot
even after arrival of his parents and neighbourer to name the accused as
assailants; his father had not called the police in his presence at the spot; his
brother was removed to the hospital after arrival of 5 minutes of his parents,
neighbourer and him; that it was auto-rickshaw as a mode of conveyance to the
hospital; that weapon penetrated in his body was not removed by either by his
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 4/60
father or by Pankaj; the witness voluntarily stated that he had not allowed them to
remove as it may bleed.
The witness was questioned that when he was going from spot to his
house, whether there was bleeding from his body or it dropped on ground, to
which witness replied that when he went from the spot to his house, he was
bleeding and his shirt was smearing with blood from the injuries but the blood
had not dropped on the ground.
The witness PW-1 denied that he and Suraj might have been
assaulted by someone else or that it was darkness and he could not see faces of
those assailants. PW-1 further denied that his brother Suraj was not lying at spot
in injured condition, when he went to his house from the spot; witness further
denied the suggestion that accused persons were not present at the spot or that
they had not participated in the alleged crime or that he was deposing falsely
against them because of previous enmity.
The witness deposed that he does not remember the timings of
arrival of police in hospital; that he had not disclosed to the police in his
statement that he went from spot to his house to inform his parents about the
incident. He admitted that in his statement to the police, he had also not told his
parents that his brother Suraj had fallen at the spot because of injuries. He further
deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 21.02.2017 in the
hospital but he does not remember the time.
On being questioned that the place of incident is a common thorough
place, where auto rickshaw, cycle rickshaw, other public persons and shopkeepers
are generally available, the witness replied that it is correct to the extent that it is
a common through place, where auto rickshaw and public persons passes through,
shopkeepers were also available but cycle rickshaw were not available.
The witness further admitted it as correct that on 19.02.2017, there
was marriage of accused’s cousin sister Pooja in Hathras, Aligarh (U.P.); that he
knows and it is correct that Sonu and Sunder had gone to Hathras, (U.P.) along
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 5/60
with their mother and father to attend the marriage but he was not aware whether
Sonu’s wife had gone to attend the marriage; that Monu was working in Satmola
factory at that time; Bhushan Steel Factory is near Satmola factory, witness
voluntarily stated that his father used to work in Bhushan Steel Factory. Witness
denied that on 20.02.2017, the said Monu was present in his office/factory or that
he has no role at all in the incident or that accused Sonu and Sunder were also not
present or that he was deposing falsely in this regard.
ii. PW2, Statement of Sh. Suraj:- The witness deposed that on
20.02.2017, at about 09:00/09:30 pm, he alongwith his brother Ram were coming
from the gym and when they reached near Chauraha, Aradhak Nagar, they were
on bicycle and accused Sonu (correctly identified by withess) met them and
stopped their bicycle and threatened them “aaj tujhe sabak sikha denge”; that
accused Sonu caught hold of him from behind and his two brothers Monu and
Sunder started assaulting him with knife and sharp edged weapon ( gupti), when
he raised alarm, his brother Ram came there, accused Sunder had given a gupti
blow on the back of Ram and when accused Sunder tried to take out gupti from
the back of Ram, its handle came out in the hand of Sunder, however sharp edged
portion of knife/gupti remained stuck on the back of his brother Ram; public
persons started gathering there, accused persons ran away from the spot, public
persons took them to the hospital where his statement (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded;
that he remained in GTB hospital for a period of three months and thereafter, he
was shifted to Lala Ram Swaroop hospital, Mehrauli, thereafter, he got treatment
in private hospital. The witness correctly identified all the accused persons
present in the Court.
The witness identified lower, underwear, track suit, top, t-shirt and
white colour vest (brought by MHC(M) in sealed pullanda) as the same clothes
which he was wearing at the time of incident.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 6/60
during cross-examination, he deposed that he had given his statement to police
and same was recorded by the police on his dictation; that the contents of the
statement were read over to him by the police after recording and thereafter, he
put his signature at point A. PW-2 admitted it as correct that accused Monu had
caught hold of him from behind and accused Sonu and Sunder had assaulted him
with knife and sharp edged object with the intention to kill and that due to some
confusion, he had deposed in his chief that he was caught hold by Sonu.
During the cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness
deposed that it is correct that the place of incident is a common through place
accessible by the public; witness further admitted that public persons were
passing through that place; that there were about 25 persons gathered and then
witness voluntarily stated that no one came forward when incident happened and
they (public persons) were looking from distance place. PW-2 further admitted it
correct that there were shopkeepers, auto rickshaw driver and cycle-rickshaw
puller; that he had not gone to the spot with the police at any point of time after
the date of incident; the bicycle was belonging to him; that he had not handed
over his bicycle to the police and he was not knowing whether police had seized
his bicycle.
On being questioned whether his brother was riding the cycle by
sitting in front or on the carrier or rear side, witness replied that there were two
bicycles, one was with him and his brother was on his own bicycle.
The witness was read over his entire statement Ex.PW2/A. The
witness agreed that in his entire statement, there is no word or reference of
bicycle was appearing. He agreed that his statement Ex.PW2/A does not reflect
that Sonu threatened him to teach him a lesson; that neither he nor his brother
made a call at 100 number to inform the police regarding the incident. PW-2
admitted that he had not disclosed the names of culprits to the doctor nor narrated
the manner of incident.
He further interalia deposed that after about 4 to 5 minutes, of their
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 7/60
reaching to the hospital, police reached there; that he cannot tell the name or
designation of those police officials who reached there; police official met him in
the ward where he was receiving treatment; further, he cannot tell the exact time
when his statement was recorded by the police, however, his statement was
recorded immediately, after arrival of police. He agreed that his statement was
recorded by police once; that he does not remember whether any document
pertaining to seizure of his blood stained clothes was prepared or not; that he does
not know whether his father was also present in the hospital in his ward, when his
statement was recorded. Witness denied that his father was also with him when
his statement was recorded by the police; he further denied the suggestion that at
the instance of his father, he had given a false statement to the police.
The witness was read over his entire statement Ex.PW2/A. The
witness agreed that in his entire statement, there is no mention that Sunder had
given a gupti blow on the back of his brother Ram and when accused Sunder tried
to take out gupti from the back of his brother Ram, handle came out in the hand
of accused Sunder and sharp edged portion remained stuck on the back of his
brother Ram. Witness denied that he was deliberately and intentionally made
improvement in his statement before this Court that Sunder had given a gupti
blow on the back of his brother. Witness denied the suggestion that Monu had not
caught hold of him from behind and accused Sonu and Sunder had assaulted him
with knife or sharp edged object with the intention to kill him or that accused
Monu, Sunder and Sonu were not present at the spot or that they had not caused
any injury to him or his brother or that he had falsely named the accused persons
in his complaint due to the enmity with Monu and his family members. He denied
that he was deposing falsely.
Witness further denied the suggestion that a quarrel had taken place
on 30.11.2016 when he was in a compromising position with the wife of accused
Monu or that DD No. 6-B was registered in PS Seemapuri through mobile no.
95xxxxxx46 and the same was marked to ASI Manoj for further action. Witness
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 8/60
further denied that in the police station, a settlement was arrived between his
father and accused persons and his father tendered an apology before the accused
persons and ‘P.
PW2/Witness Suraj further denied the suggestion that accused Sonu,
Monu and Sunder were not present at the spot and never participated in the
alleged incident. He further denied that there as pitch dark at the place of incident
or that some unknown persons had caused injuries to him or to his brother or that
he has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case due to previous
enmity.
iii. PW-3 Ct. Yogender Kumar:- He deposed that on 21.02.2017, he joined the
investigation with SI Vishvender and they went to GTB Hospital where SI
Vishvender had recorded statement of Ram; further, SI Vishvender had contacted
Dr. Rahul Anshuman in GTB Hospital; that the doctor had handed over a box in
sealed condition and that plastic container/box was containing a weapon like
knife, the said container was converted into a sealed pullanda by seizure memo
Ex.PW3/A which bears his signature at point A.
iv. PW-4 Dr. Naveen Kumar- He deposed that on 20.02.2017, at about 10.15
pm, he medically examined injured Ram (son of Sh. Pyare Lal), who was brought
to the hospital with alleged history of stab wound sustained in an incident that
took place at Aradhak Nagar, near Dilshad Garden Metro Station at about 10 pm;
that the alleged history was told to him by the patient himself and the person
namely Pankaj, who brought him to the hospital.
Dr. further deposed that on examination, he found injured was
conscious/oriented; he found injury on the right side lumbar region, 4 cm lateral
to midline around L2 vertibra and after giving primary treatment, the patient
(injured Ram) was referred to Surgery; the detailed MLC of the injured bearing
No.A-1857/05/2017 Ex. PW4/A was prepared by him.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 9/60
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and
during the cross-examination, PW4/Dr. deposed interalia that the alleged history
told to him was recorded by him as per the facts disclosed to him and the facts
were not distorted by him in any manner. The alleged history was told to him
voluntarily by the victim; that he does not remember the time when he handed
over the parcel containing T-shirt of injured to Duty Constable. PW4/Dr. Naveen
denied the suggestion that patient was not having injuries or he had mentioned the
injures at the instance of police, in the MLC.
v. PW-5 First IO/ASI Ram Singh – He deposed that on the intervening night
of 20/21.02.2017 at about 10 pm, he received one DD No. 100-B which was
assigned to him, it was in respect of an incident of stabbing of two boys near
Seema Puri Border; thereafter, he along with HC Karamvir reached at Apsara
Border, Aradhak Nagar, Seema Puri; there they came to know that injured had
been taken to GTB Hosital by his family members. Thereafter, he along with HC
Karamvir reached at GTB hospital and on reaching there, he collected MLC of
injured Suraj and Ram; both of them were declared fit for statement; that he
recorded statement of Suraj i.e. Ex.PW2/A which was attested by him and it bears
his signature at point B. The Duty Constable Karamvir handed over to him three
sealed parcels with two sample seals containing clothes of injured persons; those
parcels were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bearing
his signature at point A. On the said statement of injured Suraj; he prepared
rukka Ex.PW5/B and it was handed over to HC Karamvir for registration of the
FIR, with the request that investigation be assigned to another officer. After
registration of the FIR, further investigation was assigned to SI Vishvehnder and
he deposited the aforesaid parcels with malkhana.
The witness was duly cross-examined by the Defence counsel and in
his cross-examination, he interalia deposed that he does not remember who were
the relatives of the injured persons who met him at the place of incident; that he
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 10/60
had not recorded their statements and also not written their names and addresses;
that he did not make inquiry from those relatives as to whether they were eye-
witnesses of the incident or not; that they also did not disclose to him in this
regard. PW-5 further admitted that the incident took place on the side of the road,
which leads towards Jhuggi cluster. The said place of incident was at a distance
of about 10 to 12 meters from the main road; that there was no darkness; that
there was no street light. The witness further voluntarily deposed that there was
sufficient light coming from the side of Dilshad Garden Metro Station. The said
Dilshad Garden Metro Station was at a distance of 100 yards from the spot.
Witness denied that at the place of occurrence, there was pitch dark.
vi. PW-6 HC Karamvir- He deposed that on 20.02.2017, one DD No. 100 B
was assigned to ASI Ram Singh; that he joined ASI Ram Singh to attend the said
DD; then, he along with ASI Ram Singh reached at Apsara Border, Aradhak
Nagar, Seema Puri; on reaching there, they came to know that injured persons
were removed to GTB Hospital; then, he along with ASI Ram Singh reached at
GTB Hospital, there ASI Ram Singh collected MLC of injured Suraj and Ram;
that one Duty Constable was also present at GTB Hopsital but he does not
remember the name of that Duty Constable. The said Duty Constable handed
over three sealed parcels to ASI Ram Singh and he seized those parcels vide
seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point B. Both the injured
persons had not given their statements as they were under treatment. Therefore,
he along with ASI Ram Singh returned to police station.
On 21.02.2017, he again joined the investigation with ASI Ram Singh and
they reached at GTB Hospital; there ASI Ram Singh (PW-5) recorded statement
of injured persons Suraj and Ram; that one rukka was prepared there for
registration of FIR, which was handed over to him; he took the rukka and handed
over the same to Duty officer at PS Seema Puri for registration of FIR; then, he
handed copy of the FIR and original tehrir to ASI Ram Singh at GTB Hospital.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 11/60
His statement was recorded by SI Vishvendra at GTB Hospital.
The witness was cross-examined by the Defence counsel and in his
cross-examination, witness PW-6 deposed that the distance between the police
station and the spot is 2 km; that he cannot tell the specific place, where the
incident had happened; that in his presence, ASI Ram Singh had not lifted
anything from the spot; place of occurrence was situated at the distance of ½ km
from the road; that no eye-witness met them at the spot on their first visit except
the family members of the injured persons; that no statement of any public person
was recorded at the spot in his presence on their first visit; that no public person
met them in the hospital; that ASI Ram Singh had not recorded any statement of
family members of injured persons, who met them at the spot. He admitted that
the family members of the injured persons had not casted any suspicion upon any
persons nor they leveled any allegation against the accused persons however,
they had only informed that the injured persons have been removed to the GTB
Hospital; that they hardly remained at the spot for about 5 to 7 minutes of their
first visit. He denied that no incident had happened inside the Aradhak Nagar
from ½ from the main road or that he was deposing falsely in this aspect.
vii. PW-7 Second IO/ SI Vishvendra- He deposed that on 21.02.2017,
after registration of FIR No.94/2017 (present case FIR), the investigation of this
case was assigned to him; he along with Ct. Yogender reached at GTB Hospital;
on reaching there, he found injured persons Ram and Suraj under treatment in the
hospital. He made inquiries from both of them about the incident and recorded
the statement of injured Ram. Witness/IO further deposed that the doctor present
in the hospital handed over to him one iron strip like blade of knife, which was
already kept in transparent plastic container and sealed with the seal of GTB
Hospital; that it was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A.
Thereafter, he along with Ct., Yogender left the hospital in search of accused
persons namely Sonu, Monu and Sunder, who were named in the complaint itself;
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 12/60
that all the accused persons were interrogated by him; that on inquiry, accused
Sunder claimed himself to be a minor and he being Juvenile Welfare Officer of
PS Seema Puri made inquiries from him and documents in this regard were
prepared; that accused Sunder was left at Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
(Court Observation: It is pertinent to note herein that accused Sunder was
declared not to be a Juvenile vide order dated 28.07.2017 passed by Juvenile
Justice Board-III, Delhi)
PW-7 further interalia deposed that other two accused persons
namely Sonu and Monu were taken to PS Seema Puri; that they were again
thoroughly interrogated at police station and arrested in this case; that accused
Sonu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B and accused Monu was arrested
vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D; that personal search of the accused persons was
also conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/E respectively; that the facts
disclosed by accused Sonu and Monu were recorded as their disclosure statement,
which was Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G respectively; that both of them were got
medically examined and thereafter, were sent to lock-up.
He further deposed that on the next day, accused Sunder was
produced before JJB and other two accused persons namely Sonu and Monu were
produced in Court and both of them were sent to JC; during investigation,
ossification test of accused Sunder was got conducted from GTB Hospital;
further, he (IO) deposited MLC at GTB Hospital for obtaining opinion regarding
nature of injuries, which were kept pending by the time he prepared charge sheet
against the accused persons; that on completion of investigation, he prepared
charge sheet and filed the same before the court through SHO; that all the three
accused persons were arrested by him (witness correctly identified all the
accused). One plastic container duly sealed with the seal of MLC, GTB Hospital,
bearing the particulars of the case and name and signature of Dr. Rahul
Anshuman and seal of Senior Resident depicted on it containing iron strip like
blade of knife and which was clearly visible, was produced during the testimony
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 13/60
of PW-7, it was shown to him and he identified the object as the same which was
handed over to him by the doctor at GTB Hospital in that container.
This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and
during his cross-examination, he admitted that injured were got admitted in
hospital by one Pankaj, he had not recorded the statement of said Pankaj. He
deposed that injured persons told him that said Pankaj was known to them but
they were not aware about his address; he prepared the site plan of place of
incident at the instance of injured Suraj; he does not know on which date and time
it was prepared, but it was not prepared on the day when the investigation was
assigned to him; that he cannot tell after how many days, he prepared the site
plan; that he had not shown the position of the injured and accused persons in the
site plan.
Witness admitted that no public witness was joined at the time of
arrest/disclosure statement recorded of accused, witness then stated voluntarily
that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant by mentioning the name of
accused persons.
PW- further interalia deposed that he does not know whether the
wife of accused Monu made any PCR call against injured Suraj or whether Suraj
was apprehended at the house of accused Monu on 30.11.2016 by accused and his
mother with the wife (‘P’) of accused. He deposed that he was not aware that
Suraj felt apology before the police for the aforesaid act.
This witness has denied the suggestion that accused persons did not
make any disclosure statement; witness further denied that due to grudge of Suraj,
accused Monu and his brothers were falsely implicated at the instance of the
complainant (Suraj).
viii. PW-8 Dr. Abdulla, Jr. Resident, GTB Hospital – He deposed that on
20.02.2017, he medically examined injured Suraj at about 10:30 pm, vide MLC
No. A-1858/5/17, who was brought to the hospital by Pankaj, with alleged history
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 14/60
of stab injury near Dilshad Garden around 10 pm, which was stated by the injured
and the person, who brought him to the hospital. On medical examination of the
injured, Dr. found following injuries on the person of injured:-
1) Incised wound around 3X2 cm and 1X1 cm on posterior aspect of left
upper arm.
2) Incised wound 1X1 cm over left lateral aspect of upper arm.
3) Incised wound 2X1 cm, 1 X 1 cm and 1 X 1 cm over left flank region.
4) Incised wound 1 X 1 cm left upper quadrant of hip.
After examination, he provided primary treatment to the injured referred to
the injured for Surgery, Ortho and Forensic Departments. PW-8/Dr. Deposed that
the injuries were caused by sharp object. The detailed MLC prepared by Dr. is
Ex.PW8/A, which bears his signature at point A. PW-8/Dr. further deposed that
the lower, underwear, shirt, t-shirt and banyan of the injured were sealed in a
parcel with the seal of hospital and the parcel was collected by the police.
The witness has been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein
he admitted that whatever alleged history was told by the injured and the person,
who brought the injured to the hospital was recorded in the MC; that the name of
the assailant and their description is not mentioned in the alleged history.
ix PW-9 Dr. Sushil Kamal, Senior Resident, GTB Hospital – He
deposed that he was well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr.
Anuj Gupta as he had worked with him; that he had seen MLC of injured Ram,
son of Pyare Lal MLC No. A-1857/05/17 dated 20.02.2017; that in the said MLC,
Dr. Anuj Gupta had given his opinion regarding nature of injuries as simple, on
dated 23.05.2017, on the basis of x-ray no. 1181 dated 20.02.2017; that the said
opinion is in the handwriting of Dr. Anuj Gupta, same is Ex.PW9/A which bears
his signature and seal at point A.
x. PW-10 HC Rohtash- He deposed that on 21.02.2017, he was
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 15/60
working as MHC(M) at Malkhana of PS Seema Puri, on that day, ASI Ram Singh
had deposited the sealed pullanda with the seal of GTB Hospital Delhi; that he
deposited the said pullanda in malkhana vide seizure no. 208 of Register no.19
and photocopy of the entry of MHC(M) in register no. 19 is Ex.PW10/A. Further,
on the same date, SI Vishwender deposited one Jar and one sample seal of the
GTB Hospital.
The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and
during his cross-examination, PW-10 deposed that IO had recorded his statement
in the present case and agreed that register no. 19 do not mention the time of
deposit of exhibits nor it bears his signature. He further deposed that exhibits
were deposited in malkhana after 05:00 pm.
III. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS:-
4. Statement of all the accused persons U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded
on 17.02.2023, wherein accused Sonu S/o Masicharan in his Statement U/s. 313
Cr.P.C, besides denying the allegations so levelled by the Prosecution upon him,
stated that he never made any disclosure statement and was falsely arrested by the
police. He further stated that he was not present at the spot at the alleged time of
incident and that on 17.02.2017, he along with his brother Sunder, his wife and
parents had gone to Hathras, UP to perform the marriage of his cousin sister
namely Pooja. He further stated that he returned back to Delhi on 20.02.2017 by
train at 10:00 pm and that he has no concern with the present case in hand.
Accused Monu S/o Sh. Masi Charan in his Statement U/s. 313
Cr.P.C, besides denying the allegations so levelled by the Prosecution upon him
stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident and that
on 20.02.2017, he was working in Satmola Factory as Housekeeper from 09:00
am to 01:00 am (intervening night of 20-21.02.2017) and that he has no concern
with the alleged incident.
Accused Sunder S/o Masi Charan in his Statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C,
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 16/60
besides denying the allegations so levelled by the Prosecution upon him stated
that he never made any disclosure statement and was falsely arrested by the
police. He further stated that he was not present at the spot at the alleged time of
incident and that on 17.02.2017, he along with his brother Sonu and his wife and
parents had gone to Hathras, UP to perform the marriage of his cousin sister
namely Pooja which was scheduled for 19.02.2017 and the Vidai Ceremony was
performed on 20.02.2017 at about 08:00 am there. He further stated that he
returned back to Delhi on 20.02.2017 by train at 10:00 pm and that he has no
concern with the present case in hand.
IV. EVIDENCE IN DEFENCE:
5. Perusal of the record reveals that all the accused persons stated that
they wish to lead evidence in defense and they further examined witnesses in
order to prove their defense.
6. Accused persons have examined following witnesses in their
defense:
i. DW-1 Pooja:- She deposed that she got married with Shekhar on
19.02.2017 in her native village; that accused persons Sunder and Sonu alongwith
their parents and wife of Sonu came to thier house to attend her marriage in the
morning of 19.02.2017; that Sonu and Sunder, both accused persons were her
cousin brothers; both of them attended her marriage and photographs of accused
persons were also clicked at the time of her marriage with the accused persons.
She further deposed that they had helped in arranging her marriage functions; that
her vidai took place on the next day i.e. 20.02.2017 at around 02:00 pm; they
were present at the time of her vidai ceremony and also performed the rasam
(ritual) of Vidai; that they had left the village after her vidai and it was a journey
of six hours from our village to reach Delhi via bus or train. The photocopy of
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 17/60
her marriage card was marked as Mark-DW1/A.
DW-1 further deposed that on 22.02.2017, she had told the police
that accused persons were attending her marriage on 19.02.2017 and they were
not involved in the incident of present case.
The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the Prosecution by Ld.
Addl. PP for the State and in her cross-examination, she deposed that the card
Mark-DW1/A was got published by her father; that her marriage was attended by
approximately 200 persons. Witness admitted that there was no photograph to
show that Monu had attended her marriage. The witness voluntarily stated that he
(Monu) had not attended her marriage as he was working in Satmola Factory at
Sahibabad, Site – IV, Ghaziabad. She agreed that in the photographs Ex.PW1/D1
to Ex.PW1/D7, her face was not visible in the said photographs being under veil.
The witness denied the suggestion that accused Sonu and Sunder did
not attend her marriage. However, she admitted that she did not make any written
complaint to higher Senior Police Officers that accused was wrongly arrested in
the present case. She denied that her village is at a distance of about 02 -02 ½
hours via bus or train; she admitted that the photographs already Ex.PW1/D1 to
Ex.PW1/D7 were not photographs of vidai ceremony.
She denied the suggestion that accused persons did not attend vidai
ceremony or that her vidai ceremony had taken place in early morning around
06:00 am; that she was deposing falsely to save the accused persons being her
cousin brothers. The witness has further deposed that she does not know whether
accused Sonu and Sunder had caused injury to Ram and Suraj as she was at her
matrimonial house.
ii. DW-2 Shri Ganesh Kumar, Chief, Booking Superintendent, Railway
Station, Aligarh, UP- He deposed that he had brought original roll supply register
w.e.f 11.01.2017 till 14.06.2017 pertain to the ticket bookings (unreserved) ; that
as per record, ticket roll having the 500 tickets bearing no.UCA66235001 –
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 18/60
66235500 was issued on 20.02.2017 from window no.14 and dealt by Shri
Manish, Booking Clerk at Railway Station, Aligarh, UP. Similarly, ticket roll
having the 500 tickets bearing no.UCA 66235501 – 66236000 was issued on
20.02.2017 from window no.15 and dealt by Shri Hemant Kumar, Booking
Clerk at Railway Station, Aligarh, UP. Attested copy of the same is Ex.DW2/A.
He further deposed that five tickets Mark A1/PW1 to A2 were issued from
Railway Counter, Aligarh Railway Junction to Vivek Vihar and ticket Mark A3,
A4 and A5 were issued from Railway counter of Aligarh Railway Junction to
Sahibabad. The tickets mark A1 and A2 were issued at 3.45 PM on 20.02.2017
and tickets mark A3 was issued at about 4.11 PM and A4 and A5 were issued at
about 4.12 PM on 20.02.2017.
DW-2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and
during his cross-examination, he (DW-2) admitted that he could not say as to who
got issued the said tickets; that he also can not tell as to who had traveled from
Aligarh to Vivek Vihar and Aligarh to Sahibabad Railway Station; that these
tickets are general (unreserved); these tickets were issued to travel in EMU train
(Ordinary train). He further deposed that he cannot tell the schedule of the said
train; that these tickets cannot be used in Express and Superfast trains.
iii. DW-3 Shri Shekhar Kumar- He deposed that he got married with Pooja on
19.02.2017 in his native village i.e., Bijanpur, District Hathras, UP; that the
accused persons Sunder and Sonu alongwith their parents and wife of Sonu had
come to their house to attend his marriage in the morning of 19.02.2017; that
Sonu and Sunder (accused persons) were his brother-in-laws; that both of them
attended his marriage and photographs of accused persons were also clicked at
the time of his marriage with the accused persons. DW-3 further deposed that
they had helped in arranging his marriage functions; his vidai took place on the
next day i.e. 20.02.2017 at around 02:00 pm; that they were present at the time of
his vidai ceremony and also performed the Rasam (ritual) of Vidai; that they had
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 19/60
left the village after his vidai.
He further deposed that it was a journey of six hours from their
village to reach Delhi via bus or train; that the photocopy of his marriage card
was Mark-DW1/A; that on 22.02.2017, he had told the police that accused
persons were attending his marriage on 19.02.2017 and on 20.02.2017, at around
3-4.00 PM, they had purchased ticket from Railway Station, Aligarh to travel in
train to Delhi.
The witness DW-3 admitted that accused Sunder is shown in
photograph Ex.Mark DW3/A1 and DW3/A2 at point A in a Tilak ceremony and
Vidai ceremony.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and
during his cross-examination, he deposed that the card Mark-DW1/A was got
published by his father; that his marriage was attended by approximately 200
persons. He denied the suggestion that accused Sonu and Sunder did not attend
his marriage. He admitted that he did not make any written complaint to the
Police or to the Higher Senior Police Officers and the court that accused Sunder
was not involved in the present case; that he did not meet personally to any Police
official or Senior Police officials to apprise them that accused Sunder was not
involved in the present matter. He denied that his village is at a distance of about
02 -02 ½ hours via bus or train and agreed that there is nothing to show on the
photographs about the place that the said ceremony was taken place at Hathras,
Aligarh and voluntarily stated that the said ceremony was taken place at the house
of Pooja, my wife.
The witness agreed that that Pooja is not visible in the photograph.
The witness denied the suggestion that accused Sunder and Sonu had not attended
the wedding ceremony at Hathras, Aligarh or that both accused persons are
involved in the present case. He further denied that he was deposing falsely to
save the accused persons being the relative of the accused person or that he was
suppressing the truth to save the accused persons from the present case. He
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 20/60
further deposed that he do not know whether accused Sonu and Sunder had
caused injury to Ram and Suraj and accused that he was not present with the
accused persons at the Aligarh Railway Station when they had purchased the
railway tickets. Witness denied that the accused had not purchased any ticket
from the Aligarh Railway station to travel to Delhi from Aligarh Railway Station.
iv. DW-4 Sh. Akshay- He deposed that he was working in Honda company
as house-keeper; that the accused Monu has worked as house-keeper with him in
Satmola Company at Maharajpur, UP for a period of around 2-3 years; that on
20.02.2017, the accused Monu was on duty with him in Satmola Co. Maharajpur,
UP for the whole day i.e. from 09.00 am in the morning till 11.00 pm; that they
reached at their home at around 12.00 in the night i.e. intervening night of
20/21.02.2017. He further deposed that the accused Monu has been falsely
implicated in the present matter and since he was present on duty with him, he
was not present a the spot at the time and date of incident.
The witness (DW-4) was also cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for
the State who deposed that he does not have any documentary proof like
appointment letter, ID card, duty slip, salary slip to show that he and accused
Monu were working in Satmola co. and that accused Monu was with him on the
aforesaid date and time in the said company. He deposed that he was having the
bank account statement wherein salary of Rs.6,281/- for the month of January
2017 and Rs.6,384/- for the month of February 2017 has been credited in his
account from Satmola Co.
The witness admitted that the name of the Satmola Co. was not
reflected anywhere in the photocopy of his bank statement marked as Mark
DW4/A and voluntarily stated that the said account was opened by the Satmola
Company.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 21/60
v. DW-5 Smt. Guddi, Mother of the accused persons- She deposed interalia
that she was working as House help(Maid); that on 19.02.2017, marriage of her
daughter namely Pooja was solemnized at Village Bijalpur, Hathras, UP; that on
18.02.2017, she along with her husband, accused/her son Sonu (one of the
accused), his wife, his children and her other son Sunder (one of the accused) left
Delhi at about 6.00 PM and reached Hathras at about 5.00 AM on next day; that
after the marriage, the Vidai ceremony took place at about 2.00 PM and
thereafter, they left Hathras on 20.02.2017, at about 2.30 PM and reached
Aligarh Railway Station at about 4.30 PM and from there they took train to Delhi
and reached Delhi at about 10.00 PM; that they reached our house at about 11.00
PM.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and in
her cross-examination, she admitted that i.e. Hathras is not shown in the
photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to D7; that she does not have any documentary proof to
show that marriage ceremony of her daughter was performed at Hathras. Witness
voluntarily stated that the marriage card of her daughter is already on record and
same has already been exhibited.
She has further admitted that she does not have any ticket or documentary
proof to show that she along with accused Sonu and Sunder had visited Hathras
on the above said date; the witness further admitted that her name and names of
accused Sonu and Sunder were not reflected in the said record (Ex.DW2/A i.e.
copy of record of ticket booking register).
7. After examination of Defence witnesses, DE stood closed and final
arguments were heard from both the sides.
V. FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
8. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that both the injured i.e.
Suraj and Ram have described the incident in vivid details and have further
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 22/60
correctly identified all the accused persons as perpetrators of crime. It is further
argued that the injuries upon the person of both Suraj and Ram are duly proved
by the Prosecution by placing on record their MLCs as well as by testimony of
the doctors concerned. It is further argued that from the bare perusal of the
testimony of the witnesses and the nature of injury so inflicted upon the injured, it
is evident that the accused persons were having an intention to kill the victim
Suraj and they further stabbed the other victim Ram with a knife with complete
knowledge that such injury might result into his death. It is further argued that
the defense so raised by the accused, by no stretch of imagination goes to show
that the accused persons could not have been present at the spot at the alleged
point of time. It is further averred that even if, for the sake of arguments the story
so weaved by the accused in their defense is believed to be true and correct, there
is nothing placed on record by the accused to show as to at what time they
boarded the train from Hathras on the alleged date of incident and when they
reached to Delhi. Further, the tickets relied upon by the accused persons are
General Tickets and name of the accused or any other person is not mentioned on
any ticket. So, these could be the tickets used by any persons other than the
accused.
It is further argued that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt against all the accused persons and that accused persons are
liable to be convicted for the offences they are charged for.
9. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused
persons that there are several material contradictions in the testimony of
witnesses and as such, they cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that the
accused persons are falsely implicated by the complainant since there was
previous animosity between the parties. It is further averred that the accused
persons could not have been present at the spot at the alleged date and time and
the said defence is duly proved by the accused persons by examining its
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 23/60
witnesses. It is further argued that probable defence has been successfully raised
and proved by the accused persons and thereby, they cannot be convicted and are
entitled to be acquitted.
10. This Court has heard the arguments so led by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the case file carefully.
VI. LAW OF SEC. 307 IPC:-
11. Before proceeding further with the present case in hand on merits,
this court deems it appropriate to discuss herein law with regard to offence u/s
307 IPC. For the same, Section 307 IPC is reproduced herein, for ready
reference:
Section 307- Attempt to murder: Whoever does any act
with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Sec. 300 IPC define offence of Murder as:
300. Murder.– Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or–
(Secondly)– If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or–
(Thirdly)– If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or–
(Fourthly)– If the person committing the act knows that
it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 24/60
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse
for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
12. Further, in judgment titled as Rakesh vs The State Of Delhi decided
on 30 August, 2018, Hon’ble Delhi High Court reiterated the legal position u/s
307 IPC as:
36. In Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh AIR 1988 SC 2127, the Supreme Court
opined:
“Under Section 307 IPC, what the Court has to see is whether the
act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in that section.
The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is
necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being
established, there can be no offence of „attempt to murder ‟.
Under Section 307, the intention precedes the act attributed to
accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all
circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue.
The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used,
motive for the crime, severity of the blow, and the part of the
body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may
be taken into consideration to determine the intention.”
37. In Bappa alias Bapu v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 6 SCC
485, the victim had accompanied the accused to go watch a
movie. While returning on a bicycle, the accused suddenly got
down from the bicycle and stabbed the victim on his stomach and
back and pressed his neck. While negativing the contention that
keeping in view the nature of the injuries sustained, the offence
cannot be said to be one covered by Section 307 IPC, the
Supreme Court held as under:
“It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC if
there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury
actually caused may often given considerable assistance in
coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such
intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may
even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to
actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of
the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the
act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention orFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 25/60
knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An
attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It
is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some
overt act in execution thereof.”
As such, for an offence to come within the purview of Sec. 307 IPC, it is
for the Prosecution to prove that act so committed by the accused persons was
done with the intention or knowledge as specified u/s 300 IPC.
VII. POINT OF DETERMINATION
13. In view of the facts discuss above, it for this court to determine:
Whether the Prosecution proves that the accused persons namely Sonu,
Monu and Sunder in furtherance of their common intention did any act with
such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if they by
that act caused death of the injured namely Suraj or Ram, they would be
guilty of their murder, (Attempt to murder punishable under Section 307
IPC) ?
VIII. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-
14. Now adverting to the case in hand, it is the case of the Prosecution
that on 20.02.2017 at 09.30 pm at Apsara Border, Aradhak Nagar, Delhi, all the
accused persons namely Monu, Sonu and Sunder in furtherance of their common
intention did an act i.e. they launched attack on Complainant Suraj whereby,
accused Monu caught hold of the complainant/victim Suraj and accused Sonu and
Sunder stabbed him with a knife/sharp edged instrument (Gupti) and further when
Suraj’s brother namely Ram tried to save him, the accused persons also stabbed
him with the knife/Gupti on his back leaving sharp edge of weapon embedded in
Ram’s body.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 26/60
15. In order to prove their case, Prosecution has primarily relied upon
the testimony of injured/complainant Suraj and his brother/injured Ram.
PW-1 Sh. Ram has deposed that accused persons were having enmity
with his younger brother; that they were residing as a tenant in the house of
relative of accused persons; that on 20.02.2017, at about 09:30 pm, when he
alongwith his brother were coming from Gym and when they reached near
Chauraha, Aradhak Nagar, accused persons met them and accused persons
threatened them by saying that “aaj ise sabak sikha denge”; then the accused
Monu caught hold of his brother Suraj from back side and Sonu and Sunder had
assaulted his brother Suraj with knife with the intention to kill him; when he tried
to save his brother, accused persons also gave knife and sharp edged weapon
blow on his back side; that after causing injury, accused persons ran away from
the spot. He further deposed that the said sharp edged knife remained stuck on his
back and when accused tried to take out the said weapon back, handle of the knife
came out in the hand of accused and sharp edged portion remained stuck on his
back.
The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused
persons and during his cross-examination, he (PW-1 Ram) denied the suggestion
that Suraj and he might have been assaulted by someone else or that due to
darkness, he could not see the face of assailants. He further denied the suggestion
that no threat was extended to teach him a lesson. He further denied that accused
Monu had not withhold his brother Suraj or that Sonu and Sunder had not
assaulted him or his brother Suraj.
16. The complainant/victim Suraj (main injured) who has been examined as
PW2, has deposed that on 20.02.2017, at about 09:00/09:30 pm, he alongwith his
brother Ram were coming from the gym and when they reached near Chauraha,
Aradhak Nagar, they were on bicycle and accused Sonu met them and he stopped
their bicycle and threatened them “aaj tujhe sabak sikha denge”; that accused
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 27/60
Sonu caught hold of him from behind and his (Sonu’s) two brothers Monu and
Sunder started assaulting him with knife and sharp edged weapon ( gupti); when
he raised alarm, his brother Ram came there, accused Sunder had given a gupti
blow on the back of Ram and when accused Sunder tried to take out gupti from
the back of Ram, handle came out in the hand of Sunder and sharp edged portion
of knife/gupti remained stuck on the back of his brother Ram.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and
during his cross-examination, he deposed that he had given his statement to
police and same was recorded by the police on his dictation. Witness admitted
that accused Monu had caught hold of him from behind and accused Sonu and
Sunder had assaulted him with knife and sharp edged object with the intention to
kill, however, due to some confusion, he had deposed in his chief that he was
caught hold by Sonu.
17. It is pellucid from the testimonies of both these prime witnesses that
they have described the incident in question in its vivid details, further they have
described the role of each accused persons and both the said witnesses have
deposed that on 20.02.2017, at about 09.30 pm, while they were coming back
from Gym and reached near chauraha, Aradhak Nagar, accused persons met them
and further threatened “aaj issey sabak sikha denge”. Both the witnesses have
further deposed that while one of the accused caught hold of Suraj from behind,
other two accused assaulted him with a sharp edged weapon and further when
Ram (brother of Suraj) tried to intervene, accused persons also stabbed him on his
back with a sharp edged weapon due to which even the sharp edged portion of
that weapon got stuck on his back and it remained stuck there. As per the
testimony of IO/SI Vishvendra (PW-7), one iron strip like blade of knife, which
was already kept in transparent plastic container and sealed with the seal of GTB
Hospital was handed over to him by the doctor present in the hospital.
Both the injured witnesses correctly identified all the accused
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 28/60
persons during their deposition in the court.
IX. MEDICAL REPORT/MLCs OF INJURED PERSONS:-
18. Apart from testimony of both victims/injured, Prosecution in order to
prove the injuries upon the person of both injured namely Suraj and Ram has
placed on record their MLC Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW-4/A respectively.
Now adverting to the Medical Evidence, as per the MLC of injured
Ram, he had sustained:-
Injury on the right side lumbar region 4 cm lateral to mid-line around L2 lumber
vertibra.
Further, as per the MLC of injured Suraj, he sustained:-
a) Incised wound around 3 cm X 2 cm and 1 cm X 1 cm over posterior aspect
of left upper arm;
b) Incised wound 1 X 1 cm over left lateral aspect of upper arm;
c) Incised wound 2 X 1 cm, 1 X 1 cm and 1 X 1 cm over left flank region and
Incised wound 1 X 1 cm left upper quadrant of hip.
Both the MLCs were duly proved by the Prosecution by examining Dr.
Naveen Kumar (PW-4) and Dr. Abdulla (PW8).
19. The Prosecution has further produced the one pink colour T-shirt having
some brown stains and one cut present on the lower back side of T-shirt and a jar
sealed with the seal of hospital containing one sharp edged weapon without
handle. The said T-shirt was identified by the victim Ram as the one which he
wore on the day of incident and he also identified that sharp edged portion of
weapon as the same which was used during the commission of offence i.e.
weapon/knife which was being used by the accused persons to stab the victims
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 29/60
and its sharp edged portion remain embedded on the back of victim Ram. The
said knife without handle (sharp edged portion) was also correctly by the
witnesses during the course of their testimony.
X. DEFENCE RAISED BY ACCUSED:-
20. Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons has raised following
defenses:
a) That the accused persons were not present at the spot at the alleged point of
time.
b) That the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant
due to previous enmity.
c) That there are contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 and PW2.
d) That although the incident took place at a public place, no public person
was examined by the Prosecution.
e) That the complainant did not inform the name of assailants at 100 number
call or to the doctor during course of preparation of MLC, despite knowing
accused persons;
f) That there was delay in lodging of FIR. XI. DEFENCE OF PLEA DEFENCE OF ALIBI:-
21. It is pertinent to state in here that, accused persons nowhere during
the course of cross-examination of the witnesses/injured/complainant have denied
the occurrence of alleged incident. The defence so raised by the accused persons
is that they were not present at the spot at the alleged point of time and that the
said incident could have been caused by some other person and the accused were
falsely implicated in the present case.
The same can be gathered from the following suggestions so put to
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 30/60
the injured by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Cross Examination of witness Ram on 02.06.2018:
“…..it is wrong to suggest that Suraj and me might have
been assaulted by someone else or it was darkness and
you could not see faces of those assailants….”
Cross Examination of witness Suraj on 31.08.2018:
“….it is wrong to suggest that accused Sonu, Monu and
Sunder were not present at the spot and never
participated in the alleged incident. It is wrong to
suggest that there was pitch dark at the place of
incident or that some unknown persons had caused the
injures to me and my brother or that I have falsely
implicated the accused persons in the present case due
to previous enmity…”.
22. The alleged incident and injuries upon the person of
complainant/injured Suraj and injured Ram were not disputed by the accused,
however, all the accused persons have raised a defence that they were not present
at the spot; at this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with this defence
of alibi so raised by the accused persons.
23. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to refer to Judgment
titled as Ashok Verma Vs. State of Chhatisgarh Crl. Apeal No. 815/2022, passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (19.12.2024):-
10. We will now consider the question whether the
contention of the appellant that the plea of alibi was
considered perversely, especially without properly
appreciating the evidence of DW-1. In the decision in
Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar1, this Court took
note of the meaning of the Latin word ‘alibi’ as
‘elsewhere’ and observed and held that the said plea
would be available only if that ‘elsewhere’ is a place
which is that much far off making it extremelyFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 31/60
impossible or improbable for the person concerned to
reach the place of occurrence and participate in the
offence concerned on the relevant date and time.
Paragraph 22 and 23 of the said decision which is
relevant for the purpose reads thus:-
“22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an
exception (special or general) envisaged in the Penal
Code, 1860 or any other law. It is only a rule of
evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act
that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue
are relevant.
Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth
reproducing in this context:
“The question is whether A committed a crime at
Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on that date, A
was at Lahore is relevant.”
23. The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that
word is used for convenience when an accused takes
recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took
place he was so far away from the place of occurrence
that it is extremely improbable that he would have
participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a
criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have
inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is
on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present
at the scene and has participated in the crime. The
burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the
accused has adopted the defence of alibi.
The plea of the accused in such cases need be
considered only when the burden has been discharged
by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the
prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is
incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi,
to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the
possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.
When the presence of the accused at the scene of
occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the
prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the
court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to
the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence
happened.
But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a
quality and of such a standard that the court may
entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 32/60
at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused
would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that
reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound
proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances,
the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows,
therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the
plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier
occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.
[(1981) 2 SCC 166; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao
Gangaram Pimple [(1984) 1 SCC 446.”
13. As held in Binay Kumar Singh‘s case (supra), strict
proof is required to establish the plea of alibi. There is
absolutely no evidence establishing that DW-1 was there
in the garden during the said period. Then, how his
version could be relied on by the appellant to establish
the plea of alibi. That apart, the very fact is that the
appellant took up the plea of alibi on the ground that he
was in a nearby garden itself would be sufficient to
throw the case put forth by him as defence, in the light
of Binay Kumar Singh‘s case (supra).
The plea of alibi, in the light of the decision in Binay
Kumar Singh‘s case (supra) can be applied only if the
‘elsewhere place’ is far away from the place of
occurrence so that it was extremely improbable or
impossible for the person concerned to reach the place
of occurrence and to participate in the crime on the
relevant date and time of occurrence. In such
circumstances, we are of the considered view that the
said contention was rightly rejected by the Courts
below.
24. Now, adverting to the present case in hand, it has been stated by
accused Sonu and Sunder that they were not present at the spot on the alleged
date of incident, since on 17.02.2017 they had gone to Hathras, UP to attend
wedding of their cousin Pooja and returned back to Delhi on 20.02.2017 by train
at 10:00 pm. The accused Sunder and Sonu, in order to prove that they were at
Hathras, U.P. on the alleged date of incident, have examined Pooja as DW-1 and
Shekhar Kumar as DW-3. Accused persons further filed certain photographs in
order to show that they attended the marriage of their sister Pooja at Hathras, UP.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 33/60
Accused further placed on record five railway tickets all dated 20.02.2017 issued
between 03:45 pm to 04:12 pm from Aligarh Junction to Vivek Vihar (two
tickets) and Aligarh Junction to Sahibabad (three tickets). Accused persons have
also examined one Sh. Ganesh Kumar, Chief Booking Superintendent, Railway
Station Aligarh, UP as DW-2 in order to prove the alleged tickets.
25. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that even the
complainant/injured during the course of his examination, admitted the fact that
both accused Sonu and Sunder attended the marriage function of Pooja at
Hathras, UP. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of cross-examination
of injured Sh. Ram is being reproduced as under:
“……it is correct that on 19.02.2017, there was
marriage of accused’s cousin sister Pooja in Hathras,
Aligarh, UP. I know and it is correct that accused Sonu
and Sunder had gone in Hathras (UP) along with their
mother and father had gone to attend the marriage but I
am not knowing whether Sonu’s wife had gone to
attend the marriage…”.
26. In this regard, even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that
the accused persons attended the marriage function of their cousin sister Pooja at
Hathras, UP on 19.02.2017 and her Vidai ceremony on 20.02.2017, it cannot be
said that the accused persons could not have returned back to Delhi from Hathras
till 09.30 pm (alleged time of incident) on 20.02.2017.
27. Further, there is major contradiction in the testimonies of witnesses
so adduced by the accused persons in their defence and in their statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Accused Sonu and Sunder in their statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C averred that they went to Hathras, UP on 17.02.2017 in order to attend and
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 34/60
perform the marriage of Pooja which was scheduled on 19.02.2017, however,
Pooja(DW-1), Sh. Shekhar Kumar (DW-3) and Smt. Guddi (DW-5) during the
course of their testimonies deposed that both Sonu and Sunder reached Hathras,
UP to attend the marriage in the morning of 19.02.2017.
Accused Sunder has further stated in his Statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. that Vidai Ceremony was performed on 20.02.2017 at about 08:00
am, however, as per the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-3, both the accused left the
village (at Hathras, UP) after Vidai ceremony which allegedly took place on
20.02.2017 at 02:00 pm. In order to prove their story, the accused persons have
relied upon five railway tickets issued between 03:45 pm to 04:12 pm stated to
have been issued from Aligarh junction, UP. The issuance of said tickets was
also proved by Sh. Ganesh Kumar, Chief Booking Superintendent, Railway
Station Aligarh, UP.
It is noteworthy that although the railway tickets were issued from
Aligarh junction between 03:45 pm to 04:12 pm on 20.02.2017, however, as per
the deposition of DW-5 i.e. mother of the accused persons, they reached Aligarh
Junction at 04:30 pm i.e. after the issuance of railway tickets.
It is further pertinent to state in here that the above said tickets does
not mention the name of any individual or any of the accused or any of his family
members, nor the same specify the departure time of the train from Aligarh
junction or arrival time at Delhi. As such, from the bare perusal of the said
tickets, it cannot be said as to in whose favour the same were issued or at what
time, accused persons boarded the train or at what time, they arrived at Delhi.
Even DW-2 during the course of cross-examination failed to clarify
the same. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of DW-2 is being
reproduced as under:
“….It is correct that I cannot say as to who got issued
the said tickets. I also cannot tell as to who had
travelled from Aligarh to Vivek Vihar and Aligarh toFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 35/60
Sahibabad Railway Station. It is correct that these
tickets are general (unreserved)…”
28. Even if, for the sake of arguments, the complete defence so set up by
the accused Sonu and Sunder is believed to be correct and true that they attended
the marriage ceremony of Pooja at Hathras, UP on 19.02.2017 and left their
village on 20.02.2017 after Vidai ceremony and further obtained train tickets
from Aligarh Junction at 04:15 pm, even then, it cannot be said that the accused
persons could not have arrived back to Delhi till 09:30 pm i.e. time of incident.
The tickets so placed on record by the accused persons reflects the distance
between Aligarh junction to Vivek Vihar, Delhi as merely 118 Kms. Further, all
the tickets clearly mentions “commence journey within three hours or departure
of first train”. As such, even if, the accused persons would have boarded the train
from Aligarh after 04:15 pm, they could have easily travelled a distance of 118
Kms before the time of incident i.e. 09:30 pm.
29. With regard to the defence so raised by accused Monu that he was
present at Satmola factory from 09:00 am to 01:00 am (intervening night of 20-
21.02.2017), it is pertinent to note that the accused never stepped into the witness
box or produced any of his document or company’s document to prove this
defence. However, the accused Monu has examined one witness Akshay as DW-4
on his behalf. It is noteworthy that although Akshay during the course of his
deposition stated that on 20.02.2017, he was on duty along with accused Monu
for the whole day. He stated that their duty hours were from 09:00 am in the
morning till 11:00 pm. As such, there is contradiction with regard to the timings
of alleged duty. Furthermore, DW-4 Akshay has relied upon his Bank
Statement’s copy which only depicts that some amount has been credited but it
nowhere mentioned that the same were credited from Satmola Factory and even
otherwise, it is not in any way related to the accused Monu. Apart from oral
evidence, no documents i.e. appointment letter, ID Card, duty slip, salary slip of
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 36/60
accused Monu or Attendance register etc, has been placed on record or produced
by either accused Monu or witness Akshay to show or prove that accused Monu
was working at Satmola factory at the relevant time or that accused Monu was
present in the factory on the date of incident at the alleged point of time.
As such, considering the fact that no documentary evidence has been
adduced by the witness or by accused Monu that he (Monu) was employed with
Satmola Company on the date of incident and was present in the factory on the
alleged date, has rendered the said testimony of witness Akshay completely
unreliable for want of requisite corroboration in the form of documents.
XII. DEFENCE OF CONTRADICTION IN TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES:-
30. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that
there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. Ld. Counsel
vehemently argued that although PW-1 during the course of his testimony stated
that it was accused Monu who caught hold of Suraj from behind and accused
Sunder and Sonu assaulted him with knife, however, PW-2 Suraj during the
course of his testimony stated that accused Sonu caught hold of him from behind
while other two accused assaulted him with knife.
In this regard, it is pertinent to state herein that witness Suraj was
cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State upon the said point wherein he
clarified that accused Monu had caught hold of him from behind while accused
Sonu and Sunder assaulted him with knife. Further, during the course of cross-
examination dated 31.08.2018, witness again clarified in this regard. The
relevant portion is being reiterated as under:
“Reply to court question: (The witness attention is
drawn to the statement given on 01.06.2018 as
well as his cross-examination carried today to
explain what is the factual position as to who hadFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 37/60
caught hold of him from behind whether Sonu or
Monu) It was Monu who caught hold of me from
my back and other two assaulted me”.
31. It is settled law that minor contradictions in the testimonies of the
witnesses are bound to occur and every such contradiction cannot be said to be
fatal to the case of the Prosecution. For the same, this Court gainfully refer to the
observations made by the Apex Court in a case titled as Balu Sudam Khalde and
Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 355 decided on 29.09.2023,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the following principles:-
“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 theFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 38/60
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 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 getFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 39/60
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 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.” [See
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri
LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of
Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of
UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)]
6. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be
appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by
the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place
of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material
contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be
believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits
to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value
and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to
be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on
account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 40/60
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in
the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction,
exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the
evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be
taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep
due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
32. It is trite of law that minor contradictions cannot be a ground to disbelieve
the witnesses once their testimony stands corroborated in material particulars. In
this view this court is fortified with a Judgment of our High Court of Delhi titled
as Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of Nct) decided on 11.03.2019,
wherein it is observed and reiterated as under:-
32. It is trite that contradictions in matters of detail cannot
be a ground to disbelieve the witness once his testimony
stands corroborated in material particulars. On the aspect
of contradictions in the deposition of witnesses, following
was the view of the Supreme Court in State (Delhi
Administration) and Ors. vs. Laxman Kumar and Ors.
reported as AIR 1986 SC 250:-
“43. …..It is common human experience that different
persons admittedly seeing an event, give varying accounts
of the same. That is because the perceptiveness varies and
a recount of the same incident is usually at variance to a
considerable extent. Ordinarily, if several persons give
the same account of an event, even with reference to
minor details, the evidence is branded as parrot like and is
considered to be the outcome of tutoring. Having read the
evidence of these witnesses with great care, we are of the
view that the same has the touch of intrinsic truth and the
variations are within reasonable limits and the variations
instead of providing the ground for rejection, add to the
quality of being near to truth. …..” (emphasis added)
34. In Balvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl.
Appeal No.1115/2010 decided on 19.02.2019, the
Supreme Court has again emphasized that minorFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 41/60
discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses do not
shake their trustworthiness. The aforesaid view is a
reinforcement of the legal proposition laid down in
Appabhai and Another v. State of Gujarat reported as
1988 Supp SCC 241, where it was held as under:-
“13. …. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic
version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The
discrepancies which are due to normal errors of
perception or observation should not be given
importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be
given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast
experience of men and matters in different cases must
evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the
exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt
arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness,
the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes
into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire
prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding
embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of
their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts,
however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such
witnesses altogether if they are otherwise
trustworthy. ….” (emphasis added) To the same effect are
the decisions in Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P.
(1999) 8 SCC 649 and Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and
Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC 546.
33. In the present matter in hand, none of the alleged contradiction in the
testimony of injured/complainant can be stated to be of such material nature so as
to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
XIII. EFFECT OF NON-EXAMINATION OF ANY OTHER WITNESS:-
34. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that despite the
fact that incident happened at a public place and as per the testimony of PW-2,
public persons gathered at the spot, none of the said witness was ever examined
by the Prosecution.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 42/60
35. There is no gainsaying the fact that evidence has to be weighed and
not counted. This time honoured principle has been reiterated time and again, by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments.
In Amar Singh vs The State (NCT Of Delhi) on 12 October, 2020,
Crl. Appeal No.336 of 2015, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that :
“There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole
testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the
Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts
will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but qual-
ity that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to
be weighed and not counted.”
Needless to mention that it is the quality of evidence and not the
quantity which has to be weighed while appreciating the evidence. In the present
matter at hand, both the witnesses/injured have deposed regarding the incident in
its striking details and have identified the accused persons as the assailants. It is
highly improbable that the victims while being assaulted/attacked by the accused
persons, would have asked the name, particulars, address or mobile number of the
bypassers or the public persons who had gathered at the spot.
36. It was further argued on behalf of the accused persons that the case
of the Prosecution is primarily based only on the sole testimony of
victims/injured and it is one of the contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel that no
public witness except the injured witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution to corroborate the testimony of the injured witnesses.
It is settled proposition of law that the testimony of the injured
witnesses stands on the higher pedestal since the injuries and the fact that he or
she was himself injured is an inbuilt guarantee of his/her/their [injured witness(s)]
being present at the place of occurrence.
To address this issue, this Court holds that it has been reiterated in
number of cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if the sole testimony of injured is
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 43/60
found to be reliable and trustworthy, then the same is sufficient to record finding
against the accused, even if no other public/ independent person is examined.
This Court may gainfully refer to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India titled as ‘Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh ‘ dated
14.09.2010, Crl. Appeal No.1243 of 2007, wherein it has been observed that :
“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”.
It is further settled law that the evidence of injured witnesses cannot
be disbelieved without assigning cogent reasons. Mere contradictions/ improve-
ments on trivial matters cannot render an injured witnesses’ deposition untrust-
worthy.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as ‘Manodutt &
Anr. V/s State of UP’, Crl. Appeal No. 77/2007 decided on 29.02.12, wherein it
has been held that :
“19. Another contention raised on behalf of the
accused/appellants is that only family members of the deceased
were examined as witnesses and they being interested witnesses
cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the prosecution did not ex-
amine any independent witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution
has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. This ar-
gument is again without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar
in law in examining family members, or any other person, as
witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving family
members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend
who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people
who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a
quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the state-
ment of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the
affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible inFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 44/60
accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or
documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be
any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the
ground that the witness was family member or interested wit-
ness or person known to the affected party. There can be cases
where it would be but inevitable to examine such witnesses, be-
cause, as the events occurred, they were the natural or the only
eye witness available to give the complete version of the inci-
dent.
In this regard, we may refer to the judgments of this
Court, in the case of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, [(2007)
14 SCC 150]. This Court drew a clear distinction between a
chance witness and a natural witness. Both these witnesses have
to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and
admissible in accordance with the law. This Court, in the said
judgment, held as under:
From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal
system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the leg-
islature (Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judi-
ciary mandates that there must be particular number of wit-
nesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our
legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and
quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plu-
rality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to
fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record con-
viction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testi-
mony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality
of evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be
recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness, therefore, has no force
and must be negatived.
It will be useful to make a reference of another judgment
of this Court, in the case of Satbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, [(2009) 13 SCC 790], where this Court held as under:
It is now a well-settled principle of law that only because the
witnesses are not independent ones may not by itself be a
ground to discard the prosecution case. If the prosecution case
has been supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason has
been shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of convic-
tion can certainly be based thereupon.
Again in a very recent judgment in the case of Balraje @
Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673], this Court
stated that when the eye-witnesses are stated to be interested and
inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted thatFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 45/60
it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the
real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise
of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically.
We may merely refer to the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State
of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 259], where this Court held
as under:
The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence
of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occur-
rence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a
witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the inci-
dent, 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 un-
likely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate
someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an in-
jured witness. [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan
Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appab-
hai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag
Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar
v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy
Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maha-
rashtra].
While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jar-
nail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the
special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an in-
jured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under:
(SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) & Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an
injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testi-
mony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full de-
tails of the incident as he was present at the time when the as-
sailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v.
State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong
grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major con-
tradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on
the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered
the injury during the said incident.
In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand a similar view has been
reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has
its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sus-
tained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support
to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In
case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examina-
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 46/60
tion and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it
should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana).
37. In light of judgments discussed above, the law on the point can be
summarized 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 inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and be-
cause the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to
falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the depo-
sition 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 dis-
crepancies therein.
XIV. PLEA OF PREVIOUS ANIMOSITY BETWEEN PARTIES:-
38. It was further contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the
accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant, since there was
previous enmity between the parties.
39. In light of the discussion made above that both the injured in their
testimony have consistently stated that it was the accused persons who launched
attack upon them, stabbed them and caused injuries upon them, further the
injuries upon the victims/injured persons are duly proved by their respective
MLCs and Doctor’s deposition in this regard, the ground as to previous enmity
between the parties further goes on to strengthen the case of the prosecution,
since in the given facts and circumstances, it seems that the previous enmity
between the parties has provided Motive to the accused persons to commit the
offences rather than their false implication in the present case.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 47/60
XV. NON-DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF ACCUSED DURING CALL AT
100 NUMBER AND MLC:-
40. It was further averred that although both the injured knew all the accused,
they being relatives, yet their names were not disclosed during the call at 100
number or were informed the doctor concerned. It is further argued that said
conduct of the complainant goes to show that accused have been falsely
implicated in the present case.
In this regard, it is hereby, observed that the said argument so led by Ld.
Counsel for the accused holds no merits. Complainant or his relatives who were
subjected to serious injuries by stabbing and were under medical treatment,
cannot be expected to debrief each and every detail regarding incident on each
and every occasion. Complainant and injured, informed the name of all the
accused at the very first instance when their statement was recorded by the
Investigating agency. Further, both the injured on every occasion stated that it
were the accused who committed the offence and further they correctly identified
the accused persons as assailants. Merely because, names of the accused were not
informed or mentioned during the call at 100 number or to the doctor does not, by
any stretch of imagination, be said to have affected the case of Prosecution.
XVI. DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR?:-
41. It was also argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that although
incident is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2017 at about 09.30 PM, however,
FIR was lodged on 21.02.2017 at 3:00 AM and this delay in lodging of FIR is
unexplained.
42. Again adverting to the facts of present case in hand, the accused persons
met the complainant Suraj and his brother Ram at 09:30 PM after which incident
ensued. Thereafter, one of the injured went back home, informed about the
incident to their father and then, both injured Suraj and Ram were rushed toFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 48/60
hospital. Thereafter, police arrived at hospital and recorded statement of both the
injured/victims. Only after the statement was recorded, the present FIR was
lodged. Considering the complete series of events/circumstances, it cannot be
said that there was any delay in lodging of FIR. Rather, registration of FIR
within 5-6 hours of the incident in question lends credence to the case of
Prosecution.
43. In the instant case at hand, it is manifest from the testimony of the
complainant/ injured Suraj and another injured/his brother that their testimonies
are natural and consistent and corroborates each other in all material particulars.
PWs/ victims have withstood the test of cross-examination by Ld. Defence
Counsel in as much as nothing substantive came on record, which could have
demolished the substratum of their testimony i.e. their deposition that accused
Monu caught hold of the complainant Suraj(PW-2) while his brothers/his co-
associates (accused persons) stabbed him with a knife or sharp edged weapon
(Gupti) and when his brother Ram(PW-1) tried to intervene, accused persons also
stabbed him in his back with that sharp edged weapon due to which the sharp
edged portion of that weapon remained stuck in Ram’s back.
44. In the light of law and facts discussed above, since the prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons launched an assault on the
person of injured Suraj and Ram, the question which remains to be determined is
whether all the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention
and whether their act falls within the purview of Sec. 307 IPC.
XVII OFFENCE OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER U/s 307 IPC
45. Now, the question to be determined is whether accused had an intention or
knowledge as required, for attracting offence u/s 307 IPC (any of the clauses of
Section 300 IPC).
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 49/60
Section 307 IPC is reproduced herein, for ready reference:
Section 307 IPC- Attempt to murder: Whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that,
if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as
is hereinbefore mentioned.
46. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to quote the judgment
of our own High Court titled as ‘Vikash Bhardwaj @ Sonu & Anr. vs State Of
Nct Of Delhi‘ dated 20 February, 2014, CRL.A. 104-105/2006, wherein it has
been observed that :
“21. The essential ingredients required for a conviction under Section
307 of the IPC are :
“(i) That the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) That such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence
of the act of the accused;
(iii) That such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that
it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as;
(a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or
(b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the
accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so
imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b)
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse
for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.”
22 All the ingredients of the offence must be present before a conviction can
be ordered. The injuries sustained, the manner of the assault and the weapons
used are all relevant factors. The intention or knowledge which is foremost
ingredient of Section 307 of the IPC must precede the act attributed to the
accused. This intention/knowledge has to be gathered from the circumstances
and not necessarily from the ensuing result.
Thus, to bring home a charge U/s 307 IPC, it is an intention or
knowledge coupled with some overt act in execution of such intention or
knowledge, which is required to be seen. This intention or knowledge is to be
gathered from the attending circumstances, injuries sustained, manner of assault,
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 50/60
nature of weapon used, severity of blows or number of blows etc. The Court has
to see whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the requisite
intention or knowledge or under the circumstances as mentioned in Section 307
IPC.
In a judgment titled as ‘Sivamani & Anr. Vs. State‘ dated 28.11.2023,
Crl. Appeal No. 3619 of 2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that :
“ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
8. Section 307, IPC reads as under:’307. Attempt to murder.–
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description fora term
which may extend to ten years,and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is
caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment for life, or tosuch punishment as is herein beforementioned.
Attempts by life convicts.–When any person offending under this section
is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death.
Illustrations(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such
circumstances that, if death ensued, A would beguilty of murder. A is liable
to punishment under this section.(b) A, with the intention of causing the
death of a child of tender years,exposes it in a desert place. A has
committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child
does not ensue.(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has
not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the
offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is
liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of
this section.(d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and
mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet
committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or
delivers it This Court is fur to Z’s servants to place it on Z’s table. A has
committed the offence defined in this section.’
9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5SCC 554, the Court
held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not
necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have
been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the
premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of
course. In the same judgment, it was pointed outthat ‘…The court has to see
whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position
that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge
Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of
Haryana, (2015) 11SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha,
(2019)3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha(supra), it was
observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 51/60
maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused
can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from
surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon
used and the severity of the blows inflictedcan be considered to infer
intent.’
47. In another recent judgment titled as ‘S. K. Khaja Vs. The State of
Maharashtra‘ dated 23.08.2023, Crl. Appeal No.1183/2011, the Hon’b;e Supreme
Court of India has observed that :
“8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing
onbehalf of the respondent – State, merely because the injuries
sustained by the complainant – Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2)
were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/
accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the
IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act
committed by the appellant/ accused. In the instant case, it was proved
by cogent evidence that the appellant/ accused had tried to assault the
complainant -Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) with Gupti and that
too on his head. Though the complainant received injury on his right
shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the
Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the appellant/ accused would be
covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.
There being no infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we
are of the opinion that the present appealdeserves to be dismissed.”
48. In the judgment titled as ‘State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav’
on 30 November, 2006, Appeal (Crl.) 1334 of 2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has held that :
“To justify a conviction under this Section (307 IPC), it is not
essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give
considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the
accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances,
and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to
actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the
accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any
result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be
cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not
necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should
be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person
assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of itsFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 52/60
result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be
the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent
coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there
is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is
not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused
and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of
its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged
under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries
inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram
Bama Patil and Ors. (1983 (2) SCC 28), Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2004 (3) SCC 793) and R. Parkash v. State of Karnataka (JT
2004 (2) SC 348).
In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR 1965 SC 843) it was observed
in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did
not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the
act out of the purview of Section 307.
Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be
caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case.
The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or
minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The
determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and
not nature of the injury.”
49. From above discussed law, it is clear that for an offence punishable u/s 307
IPC the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances that if by that act
caused death, offender would have been guilty of murder. An attempt in order to
be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is
present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
50. The Intent or Knowledge on part of accused persons can be culled out from
the act so committed by them. Hon’ble Apex Court in Kesar Singh & Anr vs
State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2008 while laying down difference between
“intention” and “knowledge” in an offence, observed as follows:
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 53/60
Knowledge v. Intention
20. We must keep in mind the distinction between knowledge
and intention. Knowledge in the context of Section
299 would, inter alia, mean consciousness or realization or
understanding. The distinction between the terms
`knowledge’ and `intention’ again is a difference of degrees.
An inference of knowledge that it is likely to cause death
must be arrived at keeping in view the fact situation obtaining
in each case. The accused must be aware of the consequences
of his act.
21. Knowledge denotes a bare state of conscious awareness
of certain facts in which the human mind might itself remain
supine or inactive whereas intention connotes a conscious
state in which mental faculties are roused into activity and
summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being
directed towards a particular and specific end which the
human mind conceives and perceives before itself.
This was discussed extensively in Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi
Administration) [(1991) 2 SCC 32], stating :
“…We may note at this state that ‘intention’ is different from
‘motive’ or ‘ignorance’ or ‘negligence’. It is the ‘knowledge’ or
‘intention’ with which the act is done that makes difference, in
arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable
homicide or murder. Therefore, it is necessary to know the
meaning of these expressions as used in these provisions…
…The ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ of the accused are
subjective and invisible states of mind and their existence has
to be gathered from the circumstances, such as the, weapon
used, the ferocity of attack, multiplicity of injuries and all
other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the code
designedly used the words ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ and it
is accepted that the knowledge of the consequences which
may result in doing an act is not the same thing as the
intention that such consequences should ensue. Firstly, when
an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he must have
been aware that certain specified harmful consequences
would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare awarenessFIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 54/60
and not the same thing as intention that such consequences
should ensue. As compared to ‘knowledge’, ‘intention’
requires something more than the mere foresight of the
consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to
achieve a particular end.”
Kenny in “Outlines of Criminal Law” (17th Edition at page
31) has observed:
Intention: To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to
reach a desired objective; the noun ‘intention’ in the present
connection is used to denote the state of mind of a man who
not only foresees but also desires the possible consequences
of his conduct. Thus if one man throws another from a high
tower or cuts off his head it would seem plain that he both
foresees the victim’s death and also desires it: the desire and
the foresight will also be the same if a person knowingly
leaves a helpless invalid or infant without nourishment or
other necessary support until death supervenes. It will be
noted that there cannot be intention unless there is also
foresight, since a man must decide to his own satisfaction,
and accordingly must foresee, that to which his express
purpose is directed.
Again, a man cannot intend to do a thing unless he desires to
do it. It may well be a thing that he dislikes doing, but he
dislikes still more the consequences of his not doing it. That
is to say he desires the lesser of two evils, and therefore has
made up his mind to bring about that one.
Russell on Crime (12th Edition at Page 41) has observed:
“In the present analysis of the mental element in crime the
word ‘intention’ is used to denote the mental attitude of a man
who has resolved to bring about a certain result if he can
possibly do so. He shapes his line of conduct so as to achieve
a particular end at which he aims.”
It can thus be seen that the ‘knowledge’ as contrasted with
‘intention’ signifies a state of mental realisation with the bare
state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which human
mind remains supine or inactive. On the other hand,
‘intention’ is a conscious state in which mental faculties are
aroused into activity and summoned into action for the
purpose of achieving a conceived end. It means shaping of
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 55/60
one’s conduct so as to bring about a certain event. Therefore
in the case of ‘intention’ mental faculties are projected in a set
direction. Intention need not necessarily involve
premeditation. Whether there is such an intention or not is a
question of fact.
51. In the present case in hand, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that
while accused Monu caught hold of Suraj while accused Sunder and Sonu
repeatedly hit him with a knife/ a pointed weapon. Also, when his brother Ram
tried to intervene, they also stabbed him with the said knife/the pointed weapon
(Gupti). As per MLCs, following injuries were observed on the person of
victims/injured:-
SURAJ
Incised wound around 3 cm X 2 cm over posterior aspect of left upper arm;
Incised wound around 1 cm X 1 cm over posterior aspect of left upper arm;
Incised wound 1 X 1 cm over left lateral aspect of upper arm;
Incised wound of 2 X 1 cm over left flank region;
Incised wound of 1 X 1 cm over left flank region;
Incised wound of 1 X 1 cm over left flank region;
Incised wound 1 X 1 cm left upper quadrant of hip.
RAM
Injury on the right side lumbar region 4 cm lateral to mid-line around L2vertibra.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 56/60
XVIII IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION:
52. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to refer Section 34 IPC :-
Section 34 IPC Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention : When a criminal act
is done by several persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act
in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the
commission of a criminal act. The liability of one person for an offence
committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several
persons arises under section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance
of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime.
53. In a recent judgment titled as Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs.
State of Uttarakhand, in Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2013 with Ashad Singh
Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2013, dated
28.01.2025, The Honble Supreme Court of India has held :
18. By now, it is a settled principle of law that for con-
victing the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC
the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds. It
must be established that all the accused had preplanned
and shared a common intention to commit the crime with
the accused who has actually committed the crime. It must
be established that the criminal act has been done in fur-
therance of the common intention of all the accused. Re-
liance in support of the aforesaid proposition could be
placed on the following judgments of this Court in the
cases of:
(i)Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another v. State of
Gujarat;
(ii)Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab;
(iii)Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal(supra); and
(iv)Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 57/60
54. Section 34 IPC embodies the principle that if two or more persons intend to
do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. If
the intention or purpose is common, so must be the responsibility.
To attract applicability of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution is under an
obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before a person can
be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The ultimate act should
be done in furtherance of common intention. Common intention requires a pre-
arranged plan, which can be even formed at the spur of the moment or
simultaneously just before or even during the attack.
55. In the present case, it has been proved by the cogent, reliable, untainted
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that accused Monu caught hold of the
victim/complainant Suraj whereas, the accused persons Sonu and Sunder
repeatedly stabbed him (victim/complainant Suraj) and when Suraj’s brother
(PW-2 Ram) intervened, he was also stabbed in his back in such a manner that
left the edged portion of the knife/Gupti embedded in his body. These overt acts
committed by the accused persons coupled with prior concert are sufficient to
infer that all the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention.
XIX. FINDING:-
56. As per the testimony of both the injured/victims, the accused persons firstly
grabbed (caught hold) the complainant Suraj and thereafter, repeatedly stabbed
him with knife/Gupti/pointed weapon, causing multiple stab injuries upon his
person and further, when his brother Ram tried to rescue the complainant, they
stabbed him (Ram) as well with knife/Gupti with such a force that pointed end of
the weapon got stuck inside the body of Ram and when the accused tried to pull
out the same from the body of Ram, handle of the same was detached leaving the
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 58/60
pointed part inside the body of Ram.
As per the medical evidence, victim/injured Suraj has sustained seven (7)
injuries including those to his posterior aspect of upper arm, flank region,
quadrant of hip which indicates that accused persons stabbed him at vital parts of
his body that could have potentially resulted into his death. Furthermore, when
Suraj’s brother Ram intervened to rescue Suraj, he too was assaulted with such
force that left the knife’s edged portion embedded in his (Ram’s) body. The
sequence and nature of attacks clearly indicate that the accused/assailants
continued their assault on Suraj without any restraint and they (accused persons)
did not cease their assault on Suraj until an external force/factor (Suraj’s brother
Ram’s intervention), beyond their control, intervened.
The abovestated facts and circumstances of the present case, manner of
inflicting injuries, assault launched in a pre-meditated manner, number of injuries
on the person of victim Suraj, weapon used for commission of offence and the
body parts where injuries have been inflicted by the accused persons, the acts
committed by the accused persons clearly demonstrate and establish that all the
accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention with the intention
to cause death of Suraj (Act covered under clause firstly of Section 300 IPC).
57. On appreciation of evidence which came on record and on applying
the principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is held that Prosecution has
established that the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common
intention to cause death of the victim/injured Suraj, had attacked upon him
(Suraj) in a pre-meditated manner. The oral testimony of the victim/injured
persons is corroborated with the independent medical record. Nothing came on
record which could shatter the veracity of testimony of the PWs or falsify the
claim of the Prosecution.
Accordingly, the Point of determination is decided as under :-
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 59/60
Finding :-
Whether the Prosecution proves that the
accused persons did any act with such intention
or knowledge, and under such circumstances Positive/Yes
that, if he by that act caused death, they would
be guilty of murder?
XX. CONCLUSION:-
58. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case
and the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons Sonu,
Monu and Sunder that they all in furtherance of their common intention did an act
i.e. accused Monu withhold the complainant Suraj while accused Sonu and
Sunder assaulted the victim Suraj with the knife/sharp edged instrument (Gupti)
with such intention and under such circumstances that if by their acts, caused
death of Suraj, they would be guilty of murder.
Accordingly, accused persons Sonu, Monu and Sunder are hereby,
convicted for an offence of Attempt to murder punishable U/s 307/34 IPC.
59. A copy of this Judgment, be supplied free of cost to the accused
persons forthwith.
Announced and dictated in the open court (Surabhi Sharma Vats)
on 31th day of May, 2025 ASJ-04, Shahdara/KKD Courts,
Delhi/31.05.2025
This judgment contains 60 pages, all signed by me.
(Surabhi Sharma Vats)
ASJ-04, Shahdara/KKD Courts,
Delhi/31.05.2025
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 60/60