Delhi District Court
State vs Vishal @ Chichi And 2 Ors on 7 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
EAST DISTRICT, DELHI
Session Case No.: 534/2017
State Vs : Vishal @ Chichi
FIR No. : 393/2016
U/s : 307/34 IPC
PS : Mayur Vihar
CNR No.: DLET01-010021-2017
Date of Institution : 28.07.2017
Date of Judgment reserved on 30.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 07.05.2025
Brief Details Of The Case
Offence complained of or
proved : 307/34 IPC
Name of the accused : i) Vishal @ Chichi
S/o Sh. Raju, R/o
H.No.17/459, Trilok Puri,
Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
ii) Sachin @ Bhatti
S/o Sh. Deshpal,
R/o H.No. 16/416,Trilok
Puri,Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 1 of 24
iii) Vinay
S/o Sh. Raju
R/o H.No.17/459,
Trilok Puri, Mayur Vihar,
Delhi.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : All accused are convicted
u/s 308/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. In this case, accused Vishal @ Chichi, Sachin @
Bhatti and Vinay are facing trial on the allegations that all of
them in furtherance of their common intention had caused
injuries to Aakash @ Dabbu and thereby all of them committed
the offence of attempt to commit murder of Aakash @ Dabbu.
2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:-
(a) On 17.10.2016, the complainant/injured Aakash
@ Dabbu alongwith his friend Sumit were present in a
procession on the occasion of Valmiki Jayanti. At about 9:30 pm,
as the procession reached near ‘Khatta’ of 17-Block, his friend
Sumit started talking to another boy namely Bhatti who was
resident of 16-Block, Trilokpuri and altercation took place
between them. Bhatti started abusing Sumit and complainant
Aakash tried to intervene between them but Bhatti started
abusing the complainant as well and Sumit tried to pacify the
situation. In the meanwhile, accused namely Chichi who wasFIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 2 of 24
standing there caught hold of him from behind and pushed his
neck forward and then another accused namely Vinay who was
also present there gave blows of bottle at his head and chest. The
complainant ran away from them and met his cousin on the way
who took him to LBS hospital. Thereafter, he was referred to
GTB hospital.
(b) Subsequently at 10:30 Pm, the duty constable
posted at LBS hospital gave information in police station Mayur
Vihar about admission of Aakash in the hospital pursuant to fight
which had taken place at 17-Block. The aforesaid information
was recorded vide DD no. 33-A and it was assigned to ASI Jai
Prakash. The IO alongwith Ct. Ram Singh went to LBS hospital
and obtained MLC of Aakash. IO also collected the blood stained
clothes of victim which were handed over to him in sealed
pullanda by Dr. Gunjan. Then, both the police officials went to
GTB hospital and IO recorded statement of injured Aakash @
Dabbu.
(c) On the basis of statement of injured and his
MLC, IO prepared tehrir and sent Ct. Ram Singh to PS for
registration of FIR. Accordingly, the present FIR u/s 307/34 IPC
was registered. IO prepared site plan of the place of incident and
recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC. The case
property was deposited in the malkhana. He arrested accused
Vishal @ Chichi on 18.10.2016 and recorded his disclosureFIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 3 of 24
statement. IO collected the result of MLC of Aakash from GTB
hospital and the doctor opined that the nature of injury was
simple.
(d) ASI Jai Prakash went on leave and the
investigation of this case was assigned to ASI Mahaveer. The
said IO arrested accused Sachin @ Bhatti on 25.11.2016.
Accused Vinay surrendered in the court. Both accused were
arrested and they were also remanded to judicial custody.
Subsequently, the IO prepared charge sheet and presented the
same in the court.
3. The court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences. After completion of necessary legal
formalities u/s 209 Cr.P.C the case file was committed to the
Court of Sessions vide order dated 23.08.2017. Pursuant to order
of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, East, the matter was fixed for
hearing on point of charge. Vide order dated 23.01.2018, charge
u/s 307/34 IPC was framed against all accused and they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined
12 witnesses. A brief account of the depositions made by the
prosecution witnesses is reproduced herein below:-
Evidence of Injured/Complainant:
5. The complainant Aakash stepped into the witness
box as PW-1. In his examination in chief, the complainantFIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 4 of 24
deposed about the incident and stated that on 16.10.2016 on the
occasion of Valmiki Jayanti a procession was taking place and he
was also present in the said procession. At about 9:30 pm, as they
reached near 17 Block Khatta, accused Bhati met Sumit and
altercation took place between them. He tried to intervene
between them, but instead accused Bhatti started abusing him.
Then, Sumit intervened between them and saved him. He further
deposed that accused Vinay and Vishal @ Chichi were also
present there and accused Chichi caught hold of his neck from
behind and then pushed his neck down. Thereafter, accused
Vinay and Bhati hit bottle on his head and chest. He saved
himself from all accused and ran away from the spot. On the way,
he met his cousin (son of bua) who took him to LBS Hospital. He
was shifted to GTB Hospital. Police official recorded his
statement Ex. PW 1/A. Accused Vishal @ Chichi was arrested
vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. His blood stained clothes were
seized in LBS hospital by the doctor. He identified his clothes i.e.
vest, inner T-shirt and shirt i.e. Ex. P1. He also identified all
accused in the court.
Evidence of Other Eye-Witness-
6. PW-3 Sumit was the other eye witness of the
incident. However, he did not support the case of prosecution. In
his examination in chief, he deposed that he came to know that
all accused i.e. Vishal @ Chichi, Vinay and Sachin had quarreled
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 5 of 24
with Aakash on the occasion of Valmiki Jayanti in the year 2016,
but he did not know anything about it. In his cross examination
conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he deposed that the
incident had taken place on 17.10.2016. However, he denied all
the suggestions given by the Addl. Public Prosecutor to him as
per case of prosecution.
Evidence of Other Public Witness-
7. PW-2 Sagar i.e. cousin of injured Aakash deposed
that on 16.10.2016 he was present in front of Gali of 21 Number
Block. At about 9.30 PM, he saw his cousin Akash (son of his
maternal uncle) coming from the side of Block 17 and blood was
oozing from his body. He instantly called auto and took him to
LBS Hospital and got him admitted. The condition of his cousin
Akash was very bad and later on family members of Akash also
came in the hospital.
8. PW-7 Sh. Pawan i.e. brother of injured Aakash
deposed that on the day of Valmiki Jayanti in the year 2016, he
returned to his home at about 1.30/1.40 am (Midnight) and came
to know that his brother Aakash had been stabbed. However, he
did not know who had stabbed his brother nor his brother Aakash
disclosed the same to him. He was cross examined at length by
Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but in his cross-examination he denied
the suggestions given to him by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 6 of 24 Expert Evidence-
9. PW-9 Dr. Gunjan i.e. Medical Officer of LBS
Hospital deposed that on 16.10.2016, she examined injured
namely Aakash who was brought to the hospital by Sagar. Dr.
Shiva Nishant examined him and prepared MLC bearing no.
015362. She stated that she had worked with Dr. Shiva Nishant
and had seen him write and sign and therefore she had identified
his hand writing and signature on MLC of Akash dated
16.10.2016 Ex.PW9/A.
10. PW-10 Sh. Raj Kumar i.e. Technical Supervisor of
Radiology Department, GTB Hospital deposed that on
16.10.2016, X-ray of patient namely Akash was conducted and
X-ray plate No. 7059/161016 was taken by radiographer Hari.
Dr. Robin Goyal had signed on the report. He identified
signatures of Dr. Robin Goyal and Radiographer Hari on the
report Mark PW10/A as he had worked with them and had seen
them writing and signing in the course of their duties.
Police Witnesses-
11. PW-4 HC Surender Singh i.e. duty officer proved
endorsement Ex.PW4/A made by him on the rukka, FIR
Ex.PW4/B and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence
Act Ex.PW4/C issued by him. He deposed that after registration
of FIR, he had handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct.
Ram Singh.
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 7 of 24
12. PW-5 HC Vijay Pal i.e. duty officer proved DD no.
33-A Ex.PW5/A vide which duty constable Sunil had informed
that Aakash had been admitted in LBS hospital.
13. PW-6 Ct. Ram Singh deposed that on 16.10.2016,
DD No. 33-A was marked to ASI Jai Prakash. At about 10:40
pm, he along with IO ASI Jai Prakash reached LBS Hospital. IO
collected MLC of Akash. The IO has seized the pullanda
containing clothes of Akash which was sealed with the seal of
LBS Hospital ‘KP’. IO prepared its seizure memo Ex.PW6/A
and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that they
came to know that injured had been taken to GTB Hospital. They
went to GTB Hospital and met injured Akash. IO recorded
statement of Akash and prepared ruqqa and got the FIR registered
through him. After registration of FIR, he went to 17 Block
khatta and met IO who was already present there. He handed
over copy of FIR along with original ruqqa to IO. Then, they
went to house of accused Sumit i.e. H.No. 21/124, Trilok Puri
and IO recorded statement of Sumit. Thereafter, they returned to
the police station and case property was deposited in Malkhana.
PW Ct. Ram Singh also deposed that at about 9.30
am, he along with IO visited the house of complainant Akash and
he took them to the spot. IO prepared site plan Ex.PW6/B at the
instance of Akash. Then they went to H.No. 17/459, Trilok Puri
i.e. the house of Vishal Chichi and accused Vinay, but both of
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 8 of 24
them were not present there. Thereafter, they went to the house
of accused Sachin i.e. H.No. 16/416, Trilok Puri, but he was also
not present at his house. He along with IO returned back to the
police station and IO recorded his statement in the police station.
14. PW-11 HC Virender deposed that on 25.11.2016, he
alongwith SI Mahaveer Singh came to Karkardooma Court. ASI
Mahaveer Singh arrested accused Vinay and Sachin vide arrest
memos Ex. PW8/A and PW8/B. IO also interrogated both
accused and recorded their disclosure statements Ex. PW8/C and
PW8/D. IO also conducted their personal search and prepared
memos Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B. In his evidence, the witness
wrongly identified accused Sachin and failed to identify accused
Vinay. However, in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, on being specifically shown both accused, he admitted the
suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP for the State qua correct identification
of both accused.
15. PW-12 HC Mann Singh deposed that on 18.10.2016
at about 8:50 am, he was returning to PS after attending PCR call
and met IO of the case i.e. ASI Jai Prakash. The IO asked him to
join investigation of the case and they went to the house of
accused Vishal @ Chichi i.e. H.No. 17/459, Trilokpuri, Delhi. IO
arrested accused Vishal @ Chichi and prepared his arrest memo
Ex.PW1/B. IO also conducted his personal search and prepared
memo Ex. PW12/A. IO also interrogated accused and recorded
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 9 of 24
his disclosure statement Ex.PW12/B. He alongwith IO took
accused to the place of incident i.e. 17-Block, Trilokpuri, near
Khatta. The accused pointed out the place of incident and IO
prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW12/C. Thereafter, accused
Vishal @ Chichi was brought to PS and later on he was taken to
hospital. IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly
identified accused Vishal @ Chichi in the court.
Evidence of Investigating Officers-
16. PW-8 Retired SI Mahaveer Singh deposed that on
26.11.2016, investigation of this case was marked to him. He
came to Karkardooma Court to attend surrender cum bail
application of accused Sachin and Vinay. He formally arrested
accused Vinay and Sachin vide arrest memos Ex. PW8/A and
PW8/B. He also recorded disclosure statements of accused
Sachin and Vinay Ex. PW8/C and PW8/D. He correctly identified
accused Vinay and Sachin in the court.
17. PW-13 Retd. ASI Jai Prakash i.e. IO of the case
deposed that on 16.10.2016 he received DD No. 33 A. At about
10:40 PM, he went to LBS Hospital and collected MLC of
Akash. The sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of LBS Hospital
‘KP’ containing clothes of Akash was handed over to him. He
seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 6/A. He came to
know that injured had been taken to GTB Hospital. He went to
GTB Hospital and met injured Akash and recorded his statement.
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 10 of 24
He prepared ruqqa and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ram
Singh. He met witnesses namely Pawan and Sagar at GTB
Hospital. In the meanwhile, duty officer telephonically informed
FIR number to him and he recorded statements of Pawan and
Sagar. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. road of 17-Block i.e.
infront of Khatta but could not find any eye witness at the spot.
He alongwith Ct. Ram Singh went to house of accused Sachin,
but he was not present in his house. Then they went to house of
accused Vishal @ Chichi and Vinay and they were not present in
their house. Then they returned to police station and deposited
the case property in malkhana of PS.
He further deposed that on the same day in the
morning hours, he alongwith Ct. Ram Singh again went to the
spot and by that time complainant had returned to his house.
Then, they alongwith complainant Akash went to the spot and he
prepared site plan Ex.PW6/B at the instance of complainant.
They again tried to find out the accused persons but they were
once again not found and he yet again returned to PS. He
recorded statements of Ct. Ram Singh and complainant Akash u/s
161 Cr.PC.
The witness further deposed that on 18.10.2016, he
received a call of some other incident and he alongwith Ct. Maan
Singh went to the same area where accused persons live. He
alongwith Ct. Maan Singh went to house of accused Vishal i.e.
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 11 of 24
house no. 17/459, Trilokpuri and met the said accused. He
brought the said accused to the spot and also called the
complainant at the spot. He enquired from accused Vishal @
Chichi and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW12/B. He
arrested accused Vishal @ Chichi vide memo Ex. PW1/B and
conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW12/A. He also
prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW12/C at the instance of
accused. He recorded supplementary statement of complainant
u/s 161 Cr. PC. Later on he submitted MLC of injured for
opinion regarding the nature of injury and the doctor opined that
the nature of injury was simple. He correctly identified all the
three accused in the court.
Statement of Accused U/s 313 Cr. PC:
18. In their respective statements recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating evidence.
They took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the
present case. All accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
Arguments:
19. I have heard the final arguments advanced by ld.
Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as by ld. Defence
counsel.
20. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the
allegations against all accused have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Prosecution evidence in the form of deposition
of complainant / injured Akash is completely reliable. The
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 12 of 24
medical evidence also corroborates the oral testimony of injured.
Hence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of all accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the accused may be convicted
of the offences charged against them.
21. On the other hand, the ld. defence counsel for all
accused vehemently argued that all the three accused persons
have been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution
version PW Sumit was present at the spot and infact the
altercation had first taken place between him and accused Sachin
@ Bhati, however, the said witness did not support the case of
prosecution and he denied his presence at the spot. There is
cutting in the MLC and the said cutting / overwriting on the MLC
Ex. PW9/A has not been explained by the prosecution. He
further argued that the weapon of offence was not recovered from
the spot nor the IO had found any broken pieces of bottles at the
spot. Thus, the aforesaid facts make the prosecution version
doubtful and benefit of doubt may be extended to accused and
they may be acquitted.
Appreciation of Evidence vis-a-vis Allegations of Commission of
Offences by Accused Persons:
22. The burden to prove its case rested on the
prosecution. Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 mandates
that the burden of proving existence of any fact lies on the party
which desires that a court should give a judgment on the basis of
existence of the said facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 13 of 24
in “Dr. S.L.Goswami Vs. State of MP” 1972 A.I.R (SC) 716
:1972 (2) SCR 948 : 1972 Cri. L.J.511 : 1972 (3) S.C.C.22
reiterated that in a criminal trial the burden of proving its case
always rests on prosecution.
23. In order to discharge its burden, the prosecution was
required to prove that on 16.10.2016 at about 09:30 PM near
Khatta, 17 Block, Trilokpuri, Delhi all accused in furtherance of
their common intention had caused injuries to injured Akash @
Dabbu which were sufficient to cause his death in ordinary
course.
24. As per the case of prosecution, injured/ complainant
Akash @ Dabbu alongwith Dabbu were present in the
procession on the occasion of Valmiki Jayanti and altercation
took place between Sumit and Sachin @ Bhatti, but complainant
intervened. Then accused Vishal @ Chichi caught hold of him
from behind and the other two accused i.e. Sachin @ Bhati and
Vinay gave blows of bottle on his head and chest and then the
injured was taken to hospital by his cousin namely PW Sagar.
25. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Akash, PW-2
Sagar and PW-3 Sumit. Although, complainant / injured Akash
and PW-2 Sagar supported the case of prosecution, but PW-3
Sumit turned hostile and he deposed that he was not present at
the spot on the date of incident.
26. It is the settled proposition of law that it is not the
quantity of evidence, but its quality that is of paramount
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 14 of 24
importance for the court to arrive at just conclusion. In Anil
Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 : JT 1993 (2) SC
290, the Court observed; “Indeed, conviction can be based on the
testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or
evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness
passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a
wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing
conviction on his testimony alone.”
27. In State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC
2407, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also held that, “A criminal
trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to
one’s imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question
as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the
crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and
is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In
arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged
with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the
evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and
the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would
have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every
reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts
should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie
trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of
conjectures.”
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 15 of 24
28. The complainant/ injured PW-1 Akash in his
examination in chief categorically deposed about the manner in
which the incident took place and the role which was played by
each of the accused persons. The injured witness categorically
reiterated that accused Vishal @ Chichi had caught him from
behind and he pushed his neck down in the forward direction
and the remaining accused i.e. Sachin @ Bhati and Vinay
attacked upon him with bottle and gave blows of bottle on his
head and chest.
29. The prosecution has proved MLC of injured Akash
as Ex. PW9/A. The perusal thereof shows that Akash was
brought to hospital on 16.10.2016 at about 10:30 pm and he had
multiple lacerated wounds (3×1.5 cm) over tempo / parietal
region and incised wound (3×1.5 cm) over his abdomen towards
upper side and blood was oozing from it.
30. The defence counsel had argued that the cuttings on
the MLC make it doubtful and reduces its evidentiary value. The
perusal of aforesaid MLC Ex. PW9/A shows that no doubt that
there are cuttings in the aforesaid MLC i.e.
(a) With respect to size of multiple lacerated
wounds (1.5 cm);
(b) There is also cutting whereby the word
laceration seems to have been cut and after that incised wound is
written; &
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 16 of 24
(c) In addition, there is also cutting on the size of
the said incised wounds (3×1.5 cm).
31. PW-9 Dr. Gunjan had proved the aforesaid MLC.
The major contradiction with respect to cutting is on the word
‘laceration’ upon which ‘incised wound’ is written. However, it
has to be borne in mind that as per case of prosecution Akash
had sustained incised wounds with sharp object and blood was
oozing from his body when he reached the hospital.
32. In this regard, PW Sagar deposed that on
16.10.2016 at about 9:30 PM, he saw his cousin Akash coming
from the side of block 17 and blood was oozing from his body
and then he took Akash to LBS hospital.
33. Further, as per case of prosecution, the doctor had
seized the blood soaked clothes of injured Akash and the same
were handed over to IO in sealed pullanda. The MLC Ex.
PW9/A also shows that the black colour shirt, black colour inner
shirt and grey colour vest mixed with blood were sealed in the
hospital. The IO i.e. PW-13 ASI Jai Prakash and PW-6 Ct. Ram
Singh also categorically deposed to that effect and they proved
the seizure memo of the said articles Ex. PW-6/A. Ultimately,
the complainant in his examination in chief identified the above-
mentioned clothes Ex. P1 which were having blood stains. None
of these witnesses were cross-examined with respect to
aforementioned aspect and no suggestion was even given that
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 17 of 24
the said clothes did not belong to injured or the fact that he was
not wearing the above-mentioned clothes or the fact that the said
clothes did not contain blood stains on them.
34. Hence, by way of oral depositions of complainant
PW-1 Akash and PW-2 Sagar as well as by the fact that the
clothes Ex. P1 which Akash was wearing at the time of incident,
the prosecution has successfully established that Akash was
found in injured condition on 16.10.2016 at about 9:30 pm and
blood was oozing from his injuries.
35. The lacerated wounds would not have caused the
blood of injured to ooze/ flow from his body. Therefore, the
cutting over the word ‘laceration’ to ‘incised wound’ on the face
of it appears to be due to mistake and in my considered opinion
the said fact does not efface the effect / evidentiary value of
MLC Ex. PW9/A.
36. In this case, as mentioned above the other eye
witness i.e. PW Sumit had turned hostile and he deposed that he
was not present at the spot at the time of incident. Though the
deposition of said witness does not support the case of
prosecution, but it also does not in any manner create doubt qua
the truthfulness of the deposition of injured Akash which is duly
corroborated by his MLC Ex. PW9/A.
37. In the present case, the bottles used in commission
of offence i.e. the weapon of offence were not recovered. It is a
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 18 of 24
matter of common knowledge that glass bottles are commonly
used items and as per complainant Akash he ran away from the
spot and later on the said bottles / broken pieces of bottles were
not recovered from the spot. However, the perusal of MLC Ex.
PW9/A shows that the aforementioned injuries were caused as a
result of impact of sharp and blunt objects.
38. In this context, it is necessary to highlight that in
Lakshmi Vs. State reported in (2002) 7 SCC 198, it was held
that, “It is not an inflexible rule that weapon of assault must be
recovered and the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not accept as a
general and broad proposition of law that in case of non-
recovery of the weapon of assault, the whole prosecution case
gets torpedoed.” Further, in Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab alias
Kutti Biswas and Another AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 3334 :
(2013) 12 SCC 769, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
“There is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence corroborated by
medical evidence – Mere non-recovery of weapon from accused
does not affect prosecution case”.
Thus, the fact that weapon of offence could not be
recovered cannot be the reason to discard the testimony of
injured which is otherwise reliable.
39. It is the settled proposition of law that evidence of
an injured witness has to be accorded greater weightage and a
special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 19 of 24
injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his/ her presence
at the scene of the crime and because 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 deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon
unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on
the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
In Abdul Sayeed V State of MP, (2010) 10 SCC 259,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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.
Again in State of Uttar Pradesh V Naresh, (2011) 4
SCC 324, evidentiary value to be attached to the statement of an
injured witness was expressed in the following words:-
“The evidence of an injured witness must be given
due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence
cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to beFIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 20 of 24
very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual
assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The
testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and
efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of
occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was
present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would
not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely
to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the
offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies
therein.”
40. Another issue which arises for consideration is as to
whether the act of the accused persons in causing injuries on the
person of the victim, attracts ingredients of offence under Section
307 IPC? In order to constitute an offence under Section 307
IPC, it is required to be proved that the said act was committed
by the accused with the intention or knowledge to commit
murder and that the offence was committed under such
circumstances that if the accused, by that act, had caused death,
he would have been guilty of committing murder.
41. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Shyam
Sunder Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 542/2011
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 21 of 24
decided on 24.12.2024 held that “When assessing whether an
offence committed falls under the provisions of Section 307 IPC,
the intention to commit the offence can be gathered from the
nature of injury as well as other attending circumstances like the
seat of the injury, the nature of the weapons used and the severity
with which the blows were inflicted. The act may not even result
in an injury. As such, it is the intention or knowledge with which
the act was committed. ”
42. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned settled
proposition of law, this court will have to examine the intention
or knowledge on the part of the accused, which can be deduced
from the circumstances in which the injuries were caused, as
also the nature of injuries and the part of body where such
injuries were caused.
43. As per MLC of injured Ex. PW9/A, he had
sustained multiple lacerated wounds over tempo / parietal region
and incised wound over his abdomen towards upper side and
blood was oozing from it.
44. In the present case, it is clear that the incident
happened all of a sudden during a heated moment and there was
no prior planning or intention to kill. The accused persons are
alleged to have committed the offence by using glass bottles
which are not normally categorized as a dangerous weapon.
Such bottles are also easily available in the market and it reflects
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 22 of 24
the absence of prior planning for commission of offence. It is
also the case of prosecution that accused persons had a minor
altercation with complainant and therefore there is no element of
premeditation or serious dispute/ enmity between the parties.
45. The injuries sustained by the victim consisted of
lacerated wounds and incised wound. Though, the presence of
such wounds has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the
cuttings on the size of the wounds leaves scope for doubt about
the exact dimensions of the injuries. Even otherwise, the depth
of the incised wound is not mentioned in the MLC, therefore, it
has to be inferred that it was not a deep wound.
46. The core distinction between operation of section
307 IPC and 308 IPC lies in the level of intent. Section 307
requires an intention to commit murder, while Section 308
requires knowledge that the act could cause death, but not
necessarily the intention to kill.
47. Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC provides for a
situation where culpable homicide is not murder. It is as
follows:
“Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion
upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 23 of 24
48. Thus, considering the overall facts and
circumstances, it has to be concluded that the facts and evidence
proved on record shows that prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused persons in furtherance of their
common intention had committed the offence of attempt to
commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable
u/s 308 of IPC.
Conclusion:
49. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to
be concluded that prosecution has successfully proved beyond
reasonable doubt that accused Vishal @ Chichi, Sachin @ Bhatti
and Vinay had committed offence punishable under section
308/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused Vishal @ Chichi, Sachin @
Bhatti and Vinay are convicted for commission of offences u/s
308/34 IPC.
50. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the
convict. Be put up for arguments on quantum of sentence.
Announced in open Court on
07.05.2025
(Sushant Changotra)
ASJ (FTC) / East
KKD Court/ Delhi
FIR No. 393/2016 State Vs Vishal @ Chichi & Ors
PS Mayur Vihar Page no. 24 of 24
[ad_1]
Source link