Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Kumar Etc-(3) on 6 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE010004992014
Session Case No.1433/2016
FIR No. 94 /2014
Police Station: Sunlight Colony
State
Versus
1. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini
Son of Ram Kishan Saini
Resident of House No. 511, Top Floor,
Sunlight Colony-II, Hari Nagar Ashram,
New Delhi-110014.
2. Bharat Bhushan (already acquitted)
3. Rinku Saini (already convicted)
....... Accused persons
Date of Institution : 11.04.2014
Judgment reserved on : 05.06.2025
Date of Decision : 06.06.2025
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 1 of 47
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through
officer-in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony before the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take
cognizance of offence under section 307 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC‘) against the accused
persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Rinku Saini &
Bharat Bhushan @ Guddu for having committed the said offence.
2. Vide Judgment dated 30.03.2024, the accused Bharat
Bhushan has already been acquitted and accused Rinku Saini has
already been convicted.
3. During trial of the present case, the accused Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini, who was granted bail vide order dated
16.01.2021, never appeared in the Court and fled from justice
and vide order dated 20.02.2023, he was declared a proclaimed
offender.
4. On 23.01.2025, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini was produced in the Court by Head Constable (HC)
Sandeep Kumar of police station Sunlight Colony after his arrest
on 22.01.2025.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 2 of 47
5. On 30.01.2025, a supplementary police report was
put up by the state through officer-in-charge of the police station
Sunlight Colony pursuant to the arrest of the accused Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini.
6. As per the supplementary police report, present case
was registered in police station Sunlight colony on the complaint
of Ms. Meeta Sharma against three accused persons including
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and that during the trial of
the case the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini absconded and
was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 20.02.2023
and PO Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was arrested by the staff of
police station Sunlight Colony and was produced before Hon’ble
Court from where he was sent to JC. It is further reported in
supplementary police report that the accused Sunil Kumar @
Sunil Saini committed further offence under section 174A IPC
and hence supplementary chargesheet against him under section
307/34 IPC and 174A IPC has been prepared and submitted in
the Court.
7. As per the main police report, on 14.02.2014, this
case FIR was registered against the accused persons, namely,
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and others in police station Sunlight
Colony for the offence punishable under sections 307 read with
section 34 IPC.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 3 of 47
8. As per the police report, on 14.02.2014, during night
emergency duty, on receiving of DD no.28A, Assistant Sub-
Inspector (ASI) Jawahar Lal along with Constable (Ct.) Vikram
Singh reached at House no. 576, Sunlight Colony-II and found
the doors to be locked; that on inquiry, they came to know that
Vijay Kumar Sharma was injured in a quarrel and his wife had
taken him to Jeevan Nursing Home by PCR Van, so, they reached
there; that the doctor informed him that the injured had been
taken to AIIMS Trauma Center by CATS ambulance.
9. It is further reported in the police report that
thereafter, Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal along with
Constable Vikram Singh reached Trauma Center, AIIMS and
found that vide MLC no. 412200/14, the injured Vijay Kumar
Sharma was admitted and his wife Meeta Sharma was also
present there and on the MLC, the doctor notes, “alleged H/o
assault visible injuries stab 1.5 cm by 0.3 (depth could not be
assessed over the left side of abdomen)”. It is further reported in
the police report that Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal made
an application to the doctor for recording the statement of the
injured Vijay Kumar Sharma and on that application the doctor
declared the injured to be “unfit for statement” and thereafter, he
recorded statement of the witness/complainant Smt. Meeta
Sharma, wife of Vijay Kumar Sharma (injured).
10. As per the police report, it is, inter-alia, stated by
Smt. Meeta Sharma that in the night at about 01:30/01:45 AM,
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 4 of 47
she along with her husband was watching the T.V. and they heard
abuses and sound of quarrel of some boys on the road below; that
she had also seen and her husband went down to near those boys
and it was drizzling; that my husband was trying to pacify that
and in the meantime, heavy rain started so she went inside; that
thereafter, her husband also came in and found that her stomach
was bleeding and there were injuries on his face also.
11. It is further stated by the complainant that on her
inquiry, he told that there were 3-4 boys, one of them was Sunil
son of Ram Kishor, resident of House No. 511, S.L. Colony-II,
and those boys gave him kicks, fist blows and slapping and
caught hold him, thereafter, Sunil B.C. stabbed in his abdomen
with the knife; that she had cleaned the wound with the Dettol
and dialed 100 number to the police and took her husband to
Jeevan Hospital by PCR and from there to Trauma Center,
AIIMS by ambulance and got him admitted where her husband
was under treatment. It is further stated by Smt. Meeta Sharma
that Sunil and his accomplices have beaten her husband and
caused stabbing injury by knife, therefore, appropriate action as
per law be taken against them.
12. It is further reported in the police report that duty
Constable Kishan Ram had handed over sealed ‘pullanda’ of
blood-stained clothes of the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma and
sample seal to Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal which were
seized vide Seizure memo and taken into police custody.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 5 of 47
13. It is further reported in the police report that after
obtaining MLC and the statement, Assistant Sub-Inspector
Jawahar Lal along with Constable Vikram came back to the spot
of incident but due to the continuous rain, nothing was found on
the spot.
14. It is further reported in the police report that from
the statement of the complainant, the MLC and physical
investigation of the injured as well as the inspection of the spot,
an offence under section 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal
Code was found to have been committed and after making
endorsement on the statement of Smt. Meeta Sharma and
preparing ‘Tehrir’, Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal got the
FIR registered by sending Constable Vikram and further
investigation was taken up by himself.
15. It is further reported in the police report that during
investigation, site plan was prepared and the accused Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini was arrested in the present case and his
discloser statement was recorded and at the instance of the
accused, weapon of offence, the knife was recovered and seized
vide Seizure Memo and co-accused persons was searched for and
statement of the witnesses recorded and the case property was
seized, sealed and kept in ‘Malkhana’.
16. It is further reported in the police report that on
17.02.2014, the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was declared fit for
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 6 of 47
statement by the doctor at Trauma Center, AIIMS and he got his
statement recorded.
17. As per the police report, it is, inter-alia, stated by the
injured Vijay Kumar Sharma that on 14.12.2014 at about 01:30-
01:45 a.m., his neighbours, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini (B.C.)
son of Ram Kishan, Rinku son of Suresh Saini and Bal Bhushan
@ Guddu son of Tej Singh @ Bhabhadh had beaten him with
kicks, fists and slapping and when he tried to run away from
there to save himself, Sunil had stabbed him in the left side of his
stomach; that he raised alarm and his wife Meeta Sharma came
there and took him to the hospital.
18. It is further reported that on 09.03.2014, the accused
persons, namely, Rinku Saini and Bharat Bhushan were arrested
at the instance of the victim and separate discloser statement of
both the accused persons were recorded and pointing out memo
of the spot of incident was also prepared and statement of the
witnesses were recorded and the accused persons were sent to
judicial custody.
19. It is further reported in the police report that on
10.03.2014, result of MLC of the injured was obtained and the
doctor had opined the injury to be grievous; that on 14.03.2014,
blood sample of the victim was obtained and kept in the
‘Malkhana’ vide Memo.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 7 of 47
20. It is further reported in the police report that on
22.03.2014, subsequent opinion regarding the cause of injury was
obtained from Forensic Medicine Department, Trauma Center,
AIIMS. It is further reported that all the ‘pullandas’ were sent to
the FSL Rohini, Delhi and its result would be produced in the
Court after receiving it.
21. It is further reported in the police report that the
afore-said acts on the part of accused persons, namely, Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Rinku Saini and Bharat Bhushan revealed
commission of offence punishable under section 307 read with
section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, prayed that
cognizance of the offences committed by accused persons,
namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Rinku Saini and Bharat
Bhushan may be taken and they should be tried as per the
provisions of law.
22. After completion of the investigation, the
investigating officer had filed the charge-sheet before the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
23. On receiving of the police report, the Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate had issued production warrants against
the accused persons on 14.02.2014.
24. On 28.04.2014, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate
took the cognizance of the offence and copies of police report
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 8 of 47
and other documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. were
supplied to the accused persons.
25. On 09.05.2014, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate
found the offence to be exclusively triable by the Court of
Session, therefore, committed the case to the Court of session.
26. On 27.10.2014, upon considering the police report
and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and
after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the
accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused
persons for their having committed offence punishable under
section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
27. The charge was read over and explained to the
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and he was asked if he
pleaded guilty of the offence charged or claimed to be tried. The
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini did not plead guilty and
claimed trial.
28. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined
PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma (injured), PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma
(complainant/wife of injured), PW3 Constable (Ct.) Vikram
Singh, PW4 Constable (Ct.) Hari Kishan, PW5 Constable (Ct.)
Ankit, PW6 Head Constable (HC) Kishan Ram, PW7 Head
Constable (HC) Anil Kumar, PW8 Sub-Inspector (SI) (Retired)
Jawahar Lal. During the examination of the prosecution
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 9 of 47
witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C,
Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/DA , Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B,
Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G,
Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C,
Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5,
Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B; and ‘Pullanda’ Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3
were also tendered in evidence.
29. Regarding the supplementary police report qua the
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, two more witnesses,
namely, PW9 Head Constable (HC) Sandeep Kumar and PW10
Sub-Inspector (SI) Arun Kumar have been examined and during
their testimonies, the documents Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B,
Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C and
Ex.PW10/D were also tendered in evidence.
30. On 28.05.2025, prosecution evidence was closed and
matter was posted for examination of the accused under section
313 Cr.P.C and for his statement.
31. On 31.05.2025, this Court examined the accused
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his
statement was recorded. During his examination under section
313 of Cr.P.C., the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini denied
the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence against him. During his examination under section 313
of Cr.P.C., the accused took the defence that he is innocent and
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 10 of 47
that he was not there at the spot on the day of incident. It is
further stated by the accused that victim was a lawyer and resides
in front of his house and he, by mistake, caught him as one of the
offenders and the police framed him falsely in the present case.
The accused expressed his desire not to lead any evidence in his
defence.
32. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Hena Shah, Amicus
Curiae for the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and have gone
through the record of the case carefully.
33. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of
PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct.
Vikram Singh, PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan, PW5 Ct. Ankit, PW6 HC
Kishan Ram, PW7 HC Anil Kumar, PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, PW9
HC Sandeep Kumar and PW10 SI Arun Kumar and the
documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D,
Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C,
Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW4/A,
Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/D,
Ex.PW8/E, Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.CW1/A,
Ex.CW1/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW10/A,
Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D; and ”Pullanda”
Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State has submitted that the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini along with his two associates, whose trial has already been
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 11 of 47
completed, was creating ruckus in front of the house of the
injured and while the injured was trying to pacify them, one of
his associates caught hold of injured and the another associate
gave fists blows to the injured and the accused Sunil Kumar @
Sunil Saini stabbed him. It is further submitted that nature of
injury is grievous caused on the vital part of the body i.e.
abdomen and the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini is liable for
the offence of Attempt to Murder and the weapon used in the
commisson of the offence is a knife, which is a deadly weapon. It
is further submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement
of the injured and his testimonies find corroboration from the
history given while recording MLC and also find corroboration
from the statement of his wife Smt. Meeta Sharma. It is further
submitted that after receiving injuries, the injured immediately
went to his house and told his wife that Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini and his associates have assaulted him and the accused Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini stabbed him. It is further submitted that the
testimonies of the injured are also corroborated from the recovery
of his blood-stained clothes. It is further submitted that the
injured remained hospitalized for a week and after discharge, the
injured named all the accused persons and there is no material
contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is
further submitted that use of knife by the accused is also
corroborated by the subsequent opinion obtained by the
investigating officer wherein it is opined that the injuries could
be possible by the knife recovered at the instance of accused
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini from his house. It is further
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 12 of 47
submitted that plea of alibi is the toughest plea and must be
proved by clinching and unimpeachable evidence and accused
has failed to prove that. It is further submitted that during trial,
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini absconded after being
released on bail on 16.01.2021 and therefore, vide order dated
03.11.2022, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to
be issued against him. It is further submitted that PW10 SI Arun
Kumar duly executed the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C.
on 08.12.2022 and thereafter, vide order dated 20.02.2023,
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was declared a proclaimed
offender and on 22.01.2025, he was arrested by PW9 HC
Sandeep Kumar and therefore, the accused is further liable to be
convicted under section 174A IPC.
34. Per contra, learned amicus curiae for the accused
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has drawn my attention on the
testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Ms. Meeta
Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh, PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan, PW5 Ct.
Ankit, PW6 HC Kishan Ram, PW7 HC Anil Kumar, PW8 SI
(Rtd.) Jawahar Lal, PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar and PW10 SI Arun
Kumar and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C,
Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/DA , Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B,
Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G,
Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C,
Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5,
Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C,
Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D; and
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 13 of 47
”Pullanda” Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, and submitted that there are
multiple contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the
Constable did not collect any document from Jeevan Nursing
Home.
35. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made on behalf of the parties.
36. The accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and his two
associates have been charged for the offence punishable under
section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. Sections 307 and 34 read
as follows:
“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.
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.”
“34. Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention.- When a
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 14 of 47
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.”
37. The facts of the case have already been noticed
earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has
been adduced by the prosecution.
38. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution had examined ten (10) witnesses.
39. PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma is the injured who
deposed that on the intervening night of 13-14.02.14 at about
1.40-1.45, while he and his wife Smt. Meeta Sharma were
watching T.V., he had heard the sound of quarreling and abusing
near their house and when he had seen from his balcony, he
found that there were 4-5 guys, who were shouting and abusing
each other. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma
that he had requested them to go to their homes as it is quite
night and let them sleep and he had gone inside but shouting was
continuing. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma
that he had come down and those guys were Sunil, Rinku and
Bharat Bhushan, who were very well known to him as they were
living in front of his house.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 15 of 47
40. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma
that on his intervening they said ” Tere baap ka ilaqa hai, maaro
sale ko iski vakalat nikalo” and suddenly, Rinku caught him and
Bharat Bhushan gave a fist blow on his face. It is further deposed
by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that there was very less light
because of the raining and he fell down and they started kicking
and blowing when he was down. It is further deposed by PW1
Vijay Kumar Sharma that when he had tried to escape from there,
Sunil son of Ram Kishan had drawn a knife and stabbed in the
left side of his abdomen and he was surprised because they were
his neighbours. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar
Sharma that earlier also they used to do the same things but being
a neighbour, he had never done anything.
41. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma
that he had fled from there he had thought it was superficial
injury and he had told his wife that he had been stabbed by Sunil.
It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that his wife
had given him Dettol and when he washed his wound, there was
a lot of bleeding and he had immediately come to know that was
not a superficial injury and it was an internal rupture. It is further
deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that he had told his wife
that he needed immediate medical attention in nearby hospital,
since things were very critical due to internal injury. It is further
deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that his wife had called
100 number PCR and he had gone to nearby hospital i.e. Jeevan
Nursing Home but no efficient doctor was available at that time.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 16 of 47
It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that he had
again told his wife to call for Ambulance and he was taken to
Trauma Center. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar
Sharma that doctor had examined his condition and told that it
was a major bleeding and he had started loosing his sense and
soon lost his consciousness. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay
Kumar Sharma that he had got a major operation and regained
consciousness on 17.02.2014. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay
Kumar Sharma that on 17.02.2014 afternoon, the investigating
officer, Sub-Inspector Jawahar Singh had come and recorded his
statement.
42. PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma has correctly identified
the accused Sunil in the Court.
43. During his examination-in-chief, one sealed
‘pullanda’ duly sealed with the seal of FSL bearing the
particulars of this case was produced by the MHC(M) and same
was opened from which one white color ‘baniyan’ (Ex. P-1) and
one brown color woolen upper (Ex. P-2) and one pajama (blood-
stained) (Ex. P-30) was taken out and shown to PW1 Vijay
Kumar Sharma who had correctly identified the same.
44. During his cross-examination, PW1 Vijay Kumar
Sharma has, inter-alia, deposed that it was three storey house and
three brothers are living on the three floors with their families
and mother and father were also living with them. PW1 Vijay
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 17 of 47
Kumar Sharma further deposed that there was a big road in front
of his house which was around 40 feet wide and across the road,
it is also residential area and that road move on one side towards
Shalimar Cinema and opposite side towards Ashram Chowk and
it is busy road. PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma has further deposed
that vide DD no. 28A on 14.04.2014 it was written that the caller
had said that her husband was not well (lady ke husband ki
tabiyat kharab hai). PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma has further
deposed that the name of the assailants have not been given in
the DD number 28A dated 14.02.2014. PW1 Vijay Kumar
Sharma has further deposed that he had not named the assailants
to the doctor when he prepared the MLC no. 412200 dated
14.02.2014 in AIIMS Trauma Centre.
45. PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma is the complainant and wife
of the injured who has deposed that they were staying at the
second floor of the premises. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms.
Meeta Sharma that on the intervening night of 13/14.02.2014 at
about 1.3-1.45a.m., she along with her husband, Vijay Kumar
Sharma was watching TV at their home. It is further deposed by
PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that few boys were using abusive
language and were quarreling in the gali. It is further deposed by
PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that she had seen from upstairs whereas
her husband had gone downstairs and asked them not to abuse
and quarrel. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that
it was raining and when the rain became heavy, she had gone
inside. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that after
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 18 of 47
about 5-7 minutes her husband had come back and was bleeding
from the mouth and was heavily bleeding from the stomach and
she had inquired as to what happened.
46. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that
she had cleaned the wound of her husband and then called at 100
number. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that her
husband had told her that four five boys were quarreling in the
street and one boy out of them, namely, Sunil had stabbed him
and his associates had beaten him by fist and kick blows. It is
further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that after arrival of
the PCR, her husband was taken to the Jeevan Hospital and from
Jeevan Hospital, she had dialed 102 and called the ambulance
and they had gone to AIIMS Trauma Center. All the three
accused persons present in the Court were correctly identified by
the witness (PW2).
47. During her cross-examination, PW2 Ms. Meeta
Sharma deposed that her house consists of ground floor, first
floor, second floor and third floor and her brother-in-law used to
reside at ground and third floor and they used to live on second
and first floor of the said house. PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma further
deposed that there was residential area nearby her house and
people were living there and in front of her house there was a
road and after the end of the road there was residential area and
one side of the road leads to Shalimar Cinema and other side of
the road leads to Aashram and that road was also busy one. PW2
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 19 of 47
Ms. Meeta Sharma has further deposed that her husband told the
name of Sunil and presence of other four to five persons to her.
PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma further deposed that she had not seen
the person who had inflicted injuries to her husband and she
came to know about the injury of her husband when her husband
told the same and she had not seen accused persons, Bharat
Bhushan and Rinku beating or quarreling with her husband.
Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and
incorrect.
48. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has deposed that on the
intervening night of 13/14.02.2014, he was posted as Constable
at police station Sunlight Colony and was on emergency duty
from 08.00 a.m. to 08.00 p.m. with ASI Jawahar Lal and on that
day upon receipt of DD no. 28A, he along with the investigating
officer reached at House no. 576, Sunlight Colony-II where they
had come to know that the injured had been taken to Jeevan
Nursing Home. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh
that they had gone to Jeevan Nursing Home where they were
informed that the injured had been moved to Trauma Center,
AIIMS by CATS ambulance and they had gone to Trauma Center
where the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was found admitted and
was ‘unfit for statement’ and his wife Ms. Meeta Sharma was
also present there. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh
that the investigating officer had recorded her statement,
prepared ‘rukka’ and handed over same to him for registration of
case. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that after
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 20 of 47
registration of the case, he had come back at spot and handed
over the ‘rukka’ and copy of FIR to the investigating officer. It is
further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that they had made
efforts to locate the accused Sunil and had gone to his house i.e.
House no.511, Sunlight Colony where his father had informed
that he had gone to Adarsh Nagar. It is further deposed by PW3
Ct. Vikarm Singh that thereafter, in search of the accused
persons, they had gone towards ‘Khatta’ where the accused
persons, Sunil and Bharat Bhushan were seen and on seeing the
police party, they had tried to flee, however, they were chased
and apprehended. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh
that the investigating officer had interrogated both of them and
the accused Bharat Bhushan had told that he was not
accompanying the accused Sunil at the time of incident so they
had let him go, however, the accused Sunil (present in the Court
that day) was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/A) and his
personal search was conducted vide personal search memo
(Ex.PW3/B) bearing his signature at point A.
49. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that
during the course of investigation, the accused Sunil had made
disclosure vide statement (Ex.PW3/C) bearing his signature at
point A and in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the accused
Sunil had led them to the place of occurrence and pointed out the
spot vide memo (Ex.PW3/D) bearing his signature at point A and
also led them to his house No.511, Sunlight Colony-II where
from the roof of the top floor, the accused Sunil got recovered a
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 21 of 47
kitchen knife. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that
the investigating officer had prepared the sketch of the knife
(Ex.PW3/E). It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that
the investigating officer had prepared the pullanda of the knife
and sealed the same with the seal of ‘JL’ and had taken into
possession the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/F) bearing his
signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm
Singh that Constable Kishan Ram had handed over pullanda of
bloodstained clothes and sample seal to him and investigating
officer had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/G)
bearing his signature at point A.
50. During his cross-examination, PW3 Ct. Vikram
Singh has deposed that they had reached at the spot within 10-15
minutes and it was raining, however 3-4 public persons were
present at the spot. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has further deposed
that the pullanda was given to him before he left the hospital for
going to spot. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has further deposed that
they left for the house of the accused Sunil soon after handing
over of copy of the FIR to the investigating officer as the house
of the accused was near to the spot of incident and the father of
accused met him there. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has further
deposed that no photographs were taken by the investigating
officer. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has further deposed that the
investigating officer did not call any public person to join the
recovery proceedings. Other formal suggestions were denied by
him as wrong and incorrect.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 22 of 47
51. PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit had
accompanied the investigating officer ASI Jawahar Lal and in
search of the accused persons, Rinku Saini and Bharat Bhushan
to arrest them and their testimonies are almost similar. It is
commonly deposed by PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit
that they had joined the investigation along with ASI Jawahar Lal
in the search of the accused persons, namely, Rinku and Bharat
Bhushan at their houses. It is further commonly deposed by PW4
Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that at that time, one secret
informer and the complainant had also accompanied them and at
the instance of the secret informer, they had apprehended both
the accused persons, Rinku and Bharat Bhushan from house
no.501 and the complainant had identified both the accused
persons and they were arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/A and
Ex.PW1/B) bearing their signatures at point B & C and personal
search memo (Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D) of the accused persons
were bearing their signatures at points B & C. PW4 Ct. Hari
Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit have correctly identified both the
accused persons in the Court. It is further commonly deposed by
PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that the investigating
officer had also recorded the disclosure statement of both the
accused persons vide (Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B) bearing their
signatures at point A & B. It is further commonly deposed by
PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that thereafter, they had
taken both the accused persons to the police station and on the
direction of the investigating officer, they had taken the accused
persons, Rinku and Bharat Bhushan for their medical
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 23 of 47
examination. It is further commonly deposed by PW4 Ct. Hari
Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that the investigating officer had
recorded their statements.
52. During their cross-examination, PW4 Ct. Hari
Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit have, inter-alia, commonly deposed
that the investigating officer had made their departure entry in
Roznamcha and before personal search of the accused, they did
not offer him their personal search. Other formal suggestions
were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
53. PW6 HC Kishan Ram has deposed that on
14.02.2014, he was posted at police station Safdarjung Enclave
and on that day, he was deputed at Trauma Center, AIIMS as
Duty Constable from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 a.m. next day i.e.
15.02.2014. It is further deposed by PW6 HC Kishan Ram that
on that day at about 09:00 p.m., the injured Vijay Kumar was
admitted in the hospital who was brought from police station
Sunlight Colony and after medical examination, the doctor
handed over him two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of
CMO, Trauma Center, AIIMS and sample seal. It is further
deposed by PW6 HC that he handed over the same to the
investigating officer ASI Jawahar Lal, who had seized the same
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/G) which bears his signature at
point ‘B’.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 24 of 47
54. PW7 HC Anil Kumar has deposed that on
25.03.2014, he was posted as Constable at Sarai Kale Khan
Chowki and on that day, he had received three sealed envelopes
from MHC(M) vide RC No.46/21/14 and he had deposited the
sealed envelopes in FSL, Rohini vide Receipt No. FSL-2014. It is
further deposed by PW7 HC Anil Kumar that he had come back
at Police Station and handed over the receipt to MHC(M). It is
further deposed by PW7 HC Anil Kumar that the seal of the
parcels had remained intact until they remained in his possession
and no tampering with the seal was done. It is further deposed by
PW7 HC Anil Kumar that the investigating officer had recorded
his statement on the same day. This witness was not cross-
examined by the defence counsel.
55. PW8 SI (Retired) Jawahar Lal has deposed that in
the intervening night of 13/14.02.2014, he was posted at police
station Sunlight Colony as ASI and was on emergency duty from
08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar
Lal that at about 02:12 a.m., upon receiving of DD No.28A about
a person being unwell at House no.576, Sunlight Colony-II, he
along with Ct. Vikram had reached the spot and the house was
found locked and upon inquiry, it was revealed that a person was
stabbed and was taken to Jewan Nursing Home, Sunlight Colony.
It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that when he had
reached Jeewan Nursing home, he was informed that the patient
had already been shifted to Trauma Center in a CATS ambulance.
It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that when he had
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 25 of 47
reached Trauma Center, he had met the injured Vijay Pal Sharma
and his wife Smt. Meeta Sharma and injured was admitted vide
MLC No.412200/2014 and the doctor had opined him to be ‘unfit
for statement’.
56. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that his
wife Smt. Meeta Sharma had told him that at the time of incident,
she along with her husband was watching TV in their house at
about 01:30-01:45 a.m., when they had heard some screams and
abuses at the ground floor, her husband had gone downstairs to
stop the people from abusing and making noise at such late hours
and she herself had come in the balcony to see as to who was
making noise and there she had seen the accused Sunil Kumar @
Sunil Saini along with 2-3 other boys creating a ruckus,
thereafter, she had come inside her house. It is further deposed by
PW8 Sub Jawahar Lal that later on, her husband told her that
when he had asked those boys to stop making noise, he was
beaten by the accused persons, Rinku and Bharat Bhushan by
fists and kicks due to which he had fallen down on the ground
and when he had stood up, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini had stabbed him in his abdomen on the left side.
57. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he
had recorded her statement (Ex.PW8/A) and thereafter, all of
them had reached at the spot where he had prepared ‘rukka’
(Ex.PW8/B) and handed over it to Ct. Vikram for registration of
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 26 of 47
FIR, who had gone to police station and returned with the copy
of FIR and original ‘rukka’.
58. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that the
Duty Head Constable at Trauma Center had handed over him one
‘pullanda’ containing bloodstained clothes of injured along with
one sample seal and said ‘pullanda’ was taken into possession
vide memo (Ex.PW3/G).
59. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that
thereafter, he had made inquiries about the incident in the
neighbourhood. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that
he had prepared site-plan (Ex.PW8/C) at the instance of Smt.
Meeta.
60. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that
thereafter, search for the accused Sunil was made and after
sometime, the accused was arrested from a ‘khatta’ near Sunlight
Colony vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/A) and conducted his
personal search vide memo (Ex.PW3/B) and he also recorded his
disclosure statement (Ex.PW3/C). It is further deposed by PW8
SI Jawahar Lal that the accused Sunil had led them and pointed
the spot of incident and he had prepared memo (Ex.PW3/D). It is
further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that pursuant to
disclosure statement, the accused Sunil was taken them to the
roof of his house at House No.511, Second Floor, from where the
accused Sunil had got recovered one knife from the roof of his
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 27 of 47
house. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he had
duly measured the knife and prepared its sketch map
(Ex.PW8/D), thereafter, he had seized the knife found at the
instance of the accused after duly sealing the same with the help
of white cloth pullanda with the seal of ‘JL’ vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW3/F).
61. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that the
accused Sunil was got medically examined and was later on
produced in the Court from where he was got sent to judicial
custody and he duly deposited the case property with MHC(M).
62. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that on
17.02.2014, he had again visited the hospital when injured was
declared ‘fit for statement’ and he had recorded his statement in
which he had leveled allegations against all the three accused
persons including the accused Sunil.
63. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he
collected the final report on MLC of the injured where the nature
of injury was opined as ‘grievous’ caused by ‘sharp’ weapon.
64. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he
had also obtained subsequent opinion from Trauma Center
regarding the said injury having been caused by the said knife. It
is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that doctors had
answered in affirmation and blood sample of injured was
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 28 of 47
collected and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW8/E) and was
sent to FSL along with seized knife and after examining other
witnesses, he had prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in
the Court. PW8 SI Jawahar Lal has correctly identified the
accused Sunil in the Court and has also correctly identified the
knife (Ex.P4) stating that the same was recovered from the house
at his instance.
65. PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar deposed that on
22.01.2025, he was posted as HC at police station Sunlight
Colony, Delhi and on that day, HC Avadesh of PO Cell of the
South-East District had apprehended the accused Sunil Kumar
who was PO in the present case FIR vide order dated 20.02.2023
from Faridabad and handed over his custody to him. It is further
deposed by PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar that after due interrogation,
he had arrested the accused Sunil Kumar son of Ram Kishan
Saini in the present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW9/A) bearing
his signature at point A and conducted personal search of the
accused vide (Ex.PW9/B) bearing his signature at point A. It is
further deposed by PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar that he had got the
accused medically examined in Lok Nayak hospital and on the
next day, accused was produced in the Court. It is further
deposed by PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar that he also collected the
previous conviction/involvement report (Ex.PW9/C) qua the
accused Sunil Kumar. It is further deposed by PW9 HC Sandeep
Kumar that he had prepared supplementary charge-sheet against
the accused Sunil Kumar Saini and submitted in the Court.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 29 of 47
66. PW10 SI Arun Kumar has deposed that on
08.12.2022, he was posted as SI at police station Sunlight Colony
and on that day for the purpose of execution of proclamation
under section 82 Cr.P.C. qua the accused Sunil Kumar son of
Ram Kishan resident of H.No.511, Top Floor, Sunlight Colony II,
New Delhi, he had gone to given address of the accused where he
had met Puneet Saini (cousin) and Mrs. Bhagwati (aunt) of the
accused Sunil Kumar, who told that earlier the accused used to
reside there but for last 1-1.5 years, the accused had not visited
his house and they were not knowing about his present
whereabouts and he had recorded their statements (Ex.PW10/A
and Ex.PW10/B) both bearing his signature at point A,
respectively. It is further deposed by PW10 SI Arun Kumar that
thereafter, he had affixed/pasted the copy of proclamation on the
house of the accused and had taken its photographs (Ex.PW10/C)
and had also got announcement of the proclamation done near
the house of the accused Sunil Kumar and in his locality, but
despite his efforts, the whereabouts of the accused Sunil Kumar
could not be known.
67. It is further deposed by PW10 SI Arun Kumar that
he had gone to Saket Court where he had pasted copy of
proclamation on the notice board of the concerned Court. It is
further deposed by PW10 SI Arun Kumar that his detailed report
regarding execution of process is Ex.PW10/D bearing his
signature at point A.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 30 of 47
68. PW8 Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal and PW9 HC
Sandeep Kumar have correctly identified the accused Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini in the Court.
69. It is important to note here that when the matter was
fixed for prosecution evidence, the accused Sunil was granted
bail and from 08.09.2021, he started absenting himself and
thereafter, never appeared in the Court, and after issuing Non-
Bailable Warrants and processes under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C.,
vide order dated 20.02.2023, he was declared proclaimed
offender.
70. It is also important to note here that during
prosecution evidence, on 28.05.2025, the accused Sunil Kumar
@ Sunil Saini has made statement under section 294 Cr.P.C.,
which is reproduced as under: –
I have consulted with my lawyer. I am not disputing
the genuineness of the following documents-
1. MLC bearing No. 414200/14 dated 14.12.2014
(Ex. Al).
2. Subsequent opinion No. 239 (Ex. A2).
3. DD No. 28A dated 14.12.2014 (Ex. A3).
4. FIR No. 94/14 PS Sunlight Colony (Ex. A4).
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 31 of 47
5. Report of FSL No.2014/B-2079, BIO No.257/14
dated 29.04.2015 including the serological chart
prepared by Dr. Seema Nain (Ex.A-5).
71. The above-mentioned documents will be read in
evidence as per section 294 Cr.P.C.
72. In the light of the charge framed against accused
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and the arguments advanced before
the Court, following point for determination is framed:
1. Whether the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini
in furtherance of the common intention with his
associates, has done any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if
they by that act caused death, they would be guilty
of murder, and have caused grievous hurt to the
injured Vijay Kumar Sharma by such act.
2. Whether the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini
has failed to appear in the Court within the specified
time as required by the proclamation.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION
73. On this point, to prove the commission of offence by
the accused, the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 32 of 47
Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct.Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal
are relevant.
74. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma
and PW2 Meeta Sharma, on 13-14.02.2014 at about 01:40/01:45
a.m., on hearing the noise, Vijay Kumar Sharma (PW1) had gone
down the street. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar
Sharma, when he was trying to pacify the accused persons,
namely, Sunil, Bharat Bhushan and Rinku Saini, he was beaten
by all the three accused persons and when he had tried to save
himself from them, the accused Sunil stabbed in left side of his
abdomen. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma
and PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, when the injured had come back,
they noticed a lot of bleeding and his wife (PW2) made a 100
number call and had taken him to the nearby hospital by PCR
Van and from there to Trauma Center, AIIMS by CATS
ambulance.
75. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma,
due to heavy bleeding he had lost consciousness and undergone a
major operation and regained consciousness on 17.02.2014, on
that day, the investigating officer recorded his statement.
76. As per the testimonies of PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma,
when her husband had come back to their home, he was bleeding
from the mouth and heavily bleeding from his abdomen and
when she had inquired from her husband, who had told that Sunil
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 33 of 47
had stabbed him and his associates had beaten him with fists and
kick blows.
77. PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, wife of the
complainant/injured was the first person to whom the injured had
narrated the incident and her testimonies have much relevance,
even if she was not an eye-witness to the incident.
78. Regarding registration of this case, the testimonies
of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal are relevant.
79. As per the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and
PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, they both were on emergency duty on
13/14.02.2014 from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m., at police station
Sunlight Colony. As per the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram
Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, on receipt of DD No.28A, they
had gone to the spot at House no.576, Sunlight Colony-II which
house was found locked and on inquiry, they came to know that a
person was stabbed and the injured was taken to Jeevan Nursing
Home and on reaching there they further came to know that the
patient had been shifted to Trauma Center AIIMS in a CATS
ambulance where the injured was admitted vide MLC
no.412200/2014 and he was opined ‘unfit for statement’. As per
the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar
Lal, wife of the injured Smt. Meeta Sharma was present there and
her statement was recorded and the investigating officer prepared
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 34 of 47
the ‘rukka’ and got the FIR registered through Ct. Vikram Singh
(PW3).
80. Even otherwise, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini has made statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., whereby, he
has stated that he had consulted with his lawyer and he is not
disputing the genuineness of DD No.28A dated 14.12.2014
(Ex.A3) and FIR No.94/14 (Ex.A4) police station Sunlight
Colony.
81. From the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and
PW8 SI Jawahar Lal and the statement of the accused Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini under section 294 Cr.P.C., the prosecution
has been successful in proving the registration of FIR. No delay
in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.
82. For proving the injuries caused to the person of the
injured, the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Smt.
Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal are
relevant.
83. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma,
PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, when the injured (PW1) was trying to
pacify the accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini,
Bharat Bhushan and Rinku Saini who were making noise to the
street in front of the house of the injured, they uttered, ” tere baap
ka ilaqua hai, maro sale ko, iski vakalat nikalo ” and suddenly,
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 35 of 47
Rinku caught hold of him and Bharat Bhushan gave a fist blow
on his face; it was raining at the time and the light was very less;
he fell down and they started kicking and blowing him and when
he tried to save himself from them, the accused Sunil son of Ram
Kishor drew a knife and stabbed on the left side of his abdomen.
84. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma
and PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, when the injured had come back
to his house, they noticed that the injured was bleeding heavily,
so his wife (PW2) had called the police and had taken the injured
to nearby hospital by PCR van and from there to Trauma Center,
AIIMS by CATS Ambulance. As per the testimonies of PW1
Vijay Kumar Sharma and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, the injured
remained admitted to hospital and on 17.02.2014, he was
declared ‘fit for statement’ and his statement was recorded in
which the injured had leveled allegations against all the three
accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Bharat
Bhushan and Rinku Saini.
85. As per the testimonies of PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, he
had collected MLC of the injured wherein the nature of injury
was opined as ‘grievous’ caused by ‘sharp’ weapon and he had
obtained subsequent opinion from the Trauma Center regarding
the said injury having been caused by the said knife and the
doctor had answered in affirmation.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 36 of 47
86. Even otherwise, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini has admitted MLC (Ex.A1) and subsequent opinion
(Ex.A2) in his statement under section 294 Cr.P.C.
87. In the instant case, the injured has given the true
account of incident/injuries caused to his person in his evidence.
The MLC of the injured (Ex.A2) has also been proved by the
investigating officer, SI Jawahar Lal. It is not the case of the
accused persons that there is any tampering with MLC. Even
otherwise, the accused has admitted the genuineness of the MLC
(Ex. A2) of the injured, Vijay Kumar Sharma and the subsequent
opinion number 239 (Ex.A2) during his statement under section
294 Cr.P.C., therefore, the above-said documents can be read in
evidence as the accused has not disputed the genuineness of these
documents. During the course of arguments also, the contents of
MLC have not been challenged on behalf of the accused.
88. As per the MLC (Ex.A2) of the injured Vijay Kumar
Sharma, the nature of injury on his person was opined as
‘grievous’ and the kind of weapon used to cause the injury was
opined as ‘sharp’.
89. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been
brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above
prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version
given by either of them and their testimonies has remained
consistent to prove the fact of causing ‘grievous’ injury by the
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 37 of 47
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini on the person of the injured,
Vijay Kumar Sharma by a sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife.
90. Regarding trustworthiness of the injured eye-
witness, it has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Yogender Singh v. State, Criminal Appeal number 265/2001, as
follows:
“28. 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 an injured witness is always of great
value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted on
account of some embellishment in natural conduct or
minor contradictions.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.”
91. There is one eye-witness of the incident, namely,
Vijay Kumar Sharma (the injured), who has given his ocular
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 38 of 47
account of this case. The injured did not have animus or grudge
against the accused. The manner of the incident as described by
them is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows the
presence of injury of the dimension of 1.5 x 0.3 cm (depth could
not be assessed) over the left side of abdomen of the injured
Vijay Kumar Sharma, attributable to a sharp object. There is
another injury on the eyes of the injured.
92. Further, the accused has not been able to spell out
any plausible reason for his false implications.
93. Furthermore, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini has not led any evidence in his defence.
94. From the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar
Sharma(injured), PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma (complainant), PW8
SI Jawahar Lal and in the light of statement of the accused Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini recorded under section 294 Cr.P.C.,
thereby, admitting the genuineness of the MLC, subsequent
opinion and FSL report regarding the ‘pullanda’ (Ex.PW3/G) of
the clothes which the injured was wearing at the time of incident,
the MLC and the nature of injury caused to the person of the
injured have been duly proved.
95. Regarding arrest and identification of the accused,
the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Smt. Meeta
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 39 of 47
Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram, PW4 Ct. Harikishan, PW5 Ct. Ankit
and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal are relevant.
96. As per the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram and PW8
SI Jawahar Lal, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was
arrested from the road, near khatta, DDA Flats, Sunlight Colony
Part II, New Delhi on 14.02.2014 vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/A)
and his personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW3/B)
and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW3/C) was recorded.
97. As per the testimonies of PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, the
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini also identified the spot vide
identification memo (Ex.PW3/D).
98. Regarding recovery of the weapon of the offence, as
per the testimonies of PW8 SI Jawahar Lal at the instance of the
accused Sunil, weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from
his house which was taken into police custody vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW3/F).
99. Regarding identification of the accused Sunil Kumar
@ Sunil Saini, the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma,
PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI
Jawahar Lal are relevant.
100. The injured, Vijay Kumar Sharma has correctly
identified accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini to be the person,
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 40 of 47
who along with his associates had given beatings with kick and
fist blows to his person, during the incident and who had stabbed
him in his abdomen with a knife. PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, wife
of the injured has also identified the accused in the Court. The
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has also been correctly
identified by the police witnesses (PW3 and PW8) who were part
of the raiding party which arrested the accused.
101. In the light of the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar
Sharma, PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram and PW8 SI
Jawahar Lal, identification of the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini as the offender who had caused stab injury by a knife to the
injured Vijay Kumar Sharma is duly established and proved.
102. For the purpose of constituting an attempt under
section 307 IPC, the prosecution needs to establish the following
two ingredients, namely: –
(i) An evil intent or knowledge
(ii) An act done
103. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
entitled S.K. Khaja v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 715 as follows:
“8.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf 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
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 41 of 47
offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is
an intention coupled with 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 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 applicant/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 applicant in the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appeal
deserves to be dismissed.”
104. In the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S. K. Khaja‘s case (supra), the law is well
settled that for conviction for the offence under section 307 of the
IPC, what is important is an intention coupled with an overt act
by the accused; while grievous or life threatening injury was not
necessary to maintain a conviction under section 307 of IPC, the
intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury,
if any, as well as from the surrounding circumstances.
105. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution
which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been
successful in proving that the three offenders had beaten the
injured with kicks, fist blows, even when he had fallen down and
when the injured had tried to save himself from the offenders, the
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini stabbed him with knife in his
abdomen on the left side.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 42 of 47
106. In the facts and circumstances and the evidence
produced on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution has been
successful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and his co-accused persons, in
furtherance the common intention of them all, had given beatings
to the injured by fists & kicks and the accused Sunil Kumar @
Sunil Saini had actually caused injury to the person of Vijay
Kumar Sharma by giving knife blow on the vital part of the body
of the injured i.e. in his abdomen. The intention of the accused
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini from the said act appears to be very
much clear that he was prepared to go to any extent while
causing injuries to the injured and not only this, they in
furtherance of their such common intention committed overt act
of inflicting ‘grievous’ injuries to the vital part of person of
injured Vijay Kumar Sharma.
107. As per the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution
duly corroborated with MLC of the injured, when the
investigating officer of his case had gone to AIIMS Trauma
Center, where the injured was admitted for the treatment, the
injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was found to ‘unfit for statement’
and he underwent a major operation and regained his
consciousness on 17.02.2014. The injury caused to the person of
the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was ‘grievous’ in nature.
Therefore, in my considered opinion, the accused Sunil Kumar
@ Sunil Saini has done such act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 43 of 47
caused death, he would be guilty of murder, and he had actually
caused ‘grievous’ injury to the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma by
such act.
108. The weapon of the offence used by the accused
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was knife. As per the subsequent
opinion (Ex.A2), the doctor of Department of Forensic Medicine
and Toxicology, JPNA Trauma Center, AIIMS has opined that the
stab injury mentioned in the MLC report could be possible by
weapon of offence produced.
109. It has been held by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
in State of Maharastra v. Vinayak Tukaram Utekar and Another,
1997 Cri.LJ 3988 that knife is a deadly weapon.
110. In the light of the evidence and discussion above-
stated, it has been proved that the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Saini caused ‘grievous’ injury to the person of the injured PW1
Vijay Kumar Sharma with a deadly weapon (knife), therefore, the
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini is liable for the offence
charged.
111. It is well settled law that cross-examination is a
matter of substance and not of procedure, one is required to put
one’s version in the cross-examination of an opponent. The effect
of non-cross-examination is that the statement of the witness has
not been disputed.
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 44 of 47
112. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. State (Delhi), 2009 (163) DLT 658 as
under: –
“175. It is settled law that where a witness is not cross-
examined on any relevant aspect, the correctness of the
statement made by a witness cannot be disputed. (See
the decisions of Supreme Court reported as State of
U.P. v. Nahar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1328 and Rajinder
Prasad v. Darshana Devi AIR 2001 SC 3207).”
113. Further, the Hon’ble MP High Court in Moti Lal and
Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Crl.L.J (NOC) 125 has
held that it is a well settled principle of law that when the
accused does not challenge a prosecution witness in his cross-
examination on certain facts, it leads to inference of admission of
that fact. In Moti Lal‘s case (supra), the Hon’ble MP High Court
observed as follows:-
“In Velu Pillai Padikalingam v. Paramandam it was
observed; “every cross-examiner should and can if he is
careful indicate in cross-examination whichever part of
the evidence given in examination-in-chief is
challenged and an omission to do so would lead to the
inference that the evidence is accepted subject of course
to its being assailed as inherently improbably.” Again in
Sayed Aleem v. State of Karnataka it was observed that
non-cross-examination of prosecution witnesses of
certain facts leds to admission of that fact,
circumstances could be taken for consideration. Thus,
non-consideration, particularly P.W3 Achhelal and
P.W.4 Bhajna, on what is being projected in the defence
has been rightly held by the trial as sheer afterthought.”
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 45 of 47
114. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarwan
Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl) 471 held as
follows:
“It is a rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent
has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his
case in cross-examination it must follow that the evidence
tendered on that issue ought to be accepted. A decision of
the Calcutta High Court lends support to the observation as
above. (See in this context AEG Carapiet v. AY Derderian :
AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 (P.B. Mukherjee, J. as he then
was)].”
115. In view of the above discussion and in the light of
judgments in Rakesh Kumar‘s case (supra), Moti Lal‘s case
(supra) and Sarwan Singh‘s case (supra), since PW10 SI Arun
Kumar was not cross-examined by the defence, therefore, his
testimonies regarding execution of proclamation under section 82
Cr.P.C. against the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini stands
proved.
116. It is also important to note here that PW9 HC
Sandeep Kumar was also not cross-examined by the defence,
therefore, his testimonies regarding arrest and production of the
accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini after his being declared a
proclaimed offender by the Court also stands proved.
117. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused has taken the plea of alibi. It is well settled law that the
plea of alibi is the toughest plea and can only be proved by
leading cogent evidence. In the present case, the accused Sunil
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 46 of 47
Kumar @ Sunil Saini has led no evidence in his defence,
therefore, the plea set up by him remains unproved. Even
otherwise, such plea has been taken by him only at the stage of
statement of the accused and not before, therefore, it seems to me
not plausible plea.
118. The accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has not
tendered any reasonable explanation of his conduct.
119. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the
prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge
under sections 307/34 and 174A of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, so, the accused Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Saini is found guilty of having committed the
said offences and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable
under sections 307/34 and 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
120. Let the convict Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini be heard
on the question of sentence. Digitally signed
by RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.06.06
17:22:18 +0530Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
on 6thof June, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02,
South East, Saket Court Complex,
New DelhiFIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 47 of 47
[ad_1]
Source link