Delhi District Court
State vs Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi And Ors on 21 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27520/2016)
FIR No. 200/2010
Police Station Paharganj
Charge-sheet filed under Section 307/34 IPC.
Charge framed against accused 307/34 IPC.
State Versus Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi,
S/o Late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal,
R/o C-79/100, Jhuggi,
Aram Bagh, Paharganj,
Delhi.
...Accused.
Date of Institution of case 15.03.2013
Date of Arguments 05.04.2025
Judgment reserved on 05.04.2025
Judgment pronounced on 21.04.2025
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 307/34 IPC. The story of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2010 at about 10:30 pm, near Aram Bagh Masjid, Paharganj, Delhi he along with co-accused Mukesh @ Lambu (since deceased) and Deepak (since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries on the FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 1 of 32 person of Sh. Khalid, S/o Sh. Irfan with such intention and in such circumstances that, if by that act he had caused the death of above said Khalid, he would have been guilty of murder.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 12.08.2010, on receiving DD No. 31A, Ex. PW-11/A regarding shifting of one Khalid, S/o Sh. Irfan at Lady Harding Medical College due to injuries suffered by him in a quarrel, IO/PW-11 Inspector Harpal Madan along with Ct. Ravinder went to Lady Harding Medical College where PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid was found admitted. Thereafter, IO/PW-11 Inspector Harpal Madan collected MLC No. 25297/10 of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid on which nature of injury was reserved and the injured was declared fit for statement. Thereafter IO recorded statement of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid, Ex. PW-1/A on the basis of which, IO prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered at PS Paharganj through Ct. Ravinder. During inquiry, IO went to the spot of incident and made inquiry from public but no eyewitness could be found. Thereafter he again visited the hospital where PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid introduced one Rizwan as eyewitness of the incident. Thereafter IO recorded statement of Rizwan, Ex. PW-10/PX-1 and went in search of accused persons along with Rizwan. During investigation, IO arrested accused Mukesh @ Lambu (since deceased), conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, IO seized the blood stained shirt of injured Khalid, recorded pointing out memo of spot of incident FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 2 of 32 by accused Mukesh @ Lambu and obtained his PC remand. On 15.08.2010, IO arrested accused persons namely Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and Biru at instance of accused Mukesh @ Lambu. IO also conducted their personal search and recorded their disclosure statements. Thereafter on 17.08.2010, IO prepared site plan at instance of injured Khalid. During investigation, IO also obtained opinion about nature of injuries on the MLC of injured which was opined as 'grievous' in nature and recorded supplementary statements of injured and tried to apprehend co- accused Deepak but he could not be apprehended. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the court through SHO. After filing of charge-sheet, Ossification Test for age estimation of accused persons namely Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and Mukesh Lambu was got conducted on the direction of Ld. Court in which they were found major at the time of commission of offence. On receiving of age estimation reports, supplementary charge-sheet was also filed by the IO before the court through SHO.
3. Vide order dated 24.12.2011, copy of the charge-sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to the accused persons namely Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi, Mukesh @ Lambu and Biru by the court of Ld. ACMM and vide order dated 08.03.2013, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
4. Vide order dated 04.04.2013 the Ld. Predecessor was pleased to discharge accused Biru from this case and framed charge under Sec. 307/34 IPC against accused persons namely FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 3 of 32 Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and Mukesh @ Lambu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During trial, accused Mukesh @ Lambu expired on 13.08.2024 and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 27.09.2024.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:-
7. PW-1 Sh. Khalid, was the injured as well as complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 12.08.2010 at about 10:30 pm, he was going to his shop from Aram Bagh Mosque and when he reached near his motorcycle which he had parked near the Mosque, accused Mukesh @ Lambu, Ravi @ Titi and Deepak @ Haddi, who were the residents of Aram Bagh Jhuggis and used to come to his shop for shopping frequently, came there. He further deposed that accused Ravi told him to give him the motorcycle for a ride but he refused to give his motorcycle to them. He further deposed that accused Mukesh slapped him and when he raised alarm, accused Deepak @ Haddi pressed his mouth and accused Ravi @ Titi took out a knife and assulted him with knife on his chest and thereafter all three fled away from the spot. He further deposed that he was taken to Lady Harding Hospital and his statement, Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by the Police during his treatment, in the hospital on 13.08.2010. He also deposed that his blood stained shirt, worn by him at the time of incident was seized by Police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B. He also FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 4 of 32 deposed that another person namely Beeru also involved in the incident about which he had stated to the IO. He also deposed that he had shown the spot to the IO after getting discharged from the hospital. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he handed over the copy of invoice, copy of insurance and RC of the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-3SGL-7603 to the IO which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. This witness correctly identified both the accused persons namely Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and Mukesh @ Lambu during his deposition before the court. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he remained hospitalized for 6-7 days. He also deposed that there were no other public persons present at the time of incident as it was about 10:30 pm, however, the area was populated and it was month of Ramadan. He admitted that the motorcycle mentioned above was in the name of his Mamu. He denied the suggestion that motorcycle was not with him. He also deposed that he did not remember as to which paper he had signed firstly. Again said, he had signed the first paper/document in the hospital. He also deposed that police did not make inquiries from the public persons in his presence regarding the incident. He also deposed that he had not noticed whether blood oozed on the floor at the spot. He also deposed that accused Ravi was not his neighbour but residing in the same locality of Aram Bagh. He denied the suggestion that accused Ravi never inflicted knife injury on his person. He also denied the suggestion that he concocted a story to implicate the accused Ravi in the present case.
FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 5 of 32
8. PW-2 HC Deewan Singh, was the Duty Officer who proved the copy of present FIR, Ex. PW-2/A, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-2/B and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, Ex. PW-2/C. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
9. PW-3 HC Shyamveer, was the MHC(R) at PS Paharganj. He proved his report, Ex. PW-3/A regarding involvement of accused Ravi @ Vicky @ Titi, S/o Late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, R/o C-79/160, Jhuggi, Aram Bagh, Paharganj in case FIR No. 85/2008, under Sec. 323/341/34 IPC, PS Paharganj. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he did not know as to who was the IO of abovesaid case FIR No. 85/2008.
10. PW-4 W/SI Neelam Yadav, was CRO, Crime & Railway, Kamla Market, Delhi. She proved the previous involvement report of accused persons namely Mohd. Salman, Deepak @ Haddi, Veeru, Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and Mukesh @ Lambu as Ex. PW-4/A. She also proved previous conviction/involvement report of accused Mukesh @ Lambu as Ex. PW-4/B. In her cross- examination, she deposed that she had received the written request of IO to produce the abovesaid involvement record.
11. PW-5 Ct. Ravinder Singh, deposed that he did not remember the exact date and time but it was in the year 2010, one information was received from Lady Harding Hospital regarding admission of one injured. He further deposed that he along with emergency officer Harpal Singh reached Lady Harding Hospital and found that one person namely Khalid was FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 6 of 32 admitted there. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement and handed over him rukka for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS Paharganj and got the present FIR registered and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. He further deposed that after that he along with IO went to place of incident i.e. Panchkuiya Road where IO inquired from some public persons regarding the incident and after that they returned back to Lady Harding Hospital. He further deposed that in the hospital, they met with one Rizwan whose statement was recorded by IO and thereafter they went to Aram Bagh with Rizwan in search of accused persons. He narrated about apprehension of accused Mukesh @ Lambu by IO at instance of Rizwan and proved his arrest memo and personal search memo as Ex. PW-5/A & Ex. PW-5/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that only injured Khalid was present in the hospital when he first time reached there. He also deposed that he did not remember whether there were any shops/residential area near the place of incident or not. He also deposed that IO asked some passersby to join investigation but none agreed to join the investigation. He also deposed that IO had not asked any neighbours to join investigation after approaching to their respective houses. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation in the present case at any point of time.
12. PW-6 Ct. Vijender, deposed that on 15.08.2010 he along with SI Harpal and Ct. Sanjeev left the PS and reached at Gali No. 12, Multani Danda, Nabi Karim where IO interrogated FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 7 of 32 accused Ravi @ Vicky @ Titi and arrested him in the present case. He proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Ravi @ Vicky @ Titi as Ex. PW-6/A & Ex. PW-6/B. He also narrated about apprehension of accused Beeru from Gol Chamberi, near Shamshan Ghat, Punchkuiya Road, Delhi at instance of accused Ravi @ Vicky @ Titi by the IO and proved his arrest memo as Ex. PW-6/C. He also narrated about identification of both the accused persons by the injured/complainant Sh. Khalid in the hospital. He also proved disclosure statements of accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and Beeru as Ex. PW-6/E and Ex. PW-6/F. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Gali No. 12 was residential area and IO did not call any resident of the abovesaid gali to join the proceedings of arrest of accused Vicky @ Ravi. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation in the present case at any point of time or that accused Ravi @ Vicky @ Titi had not been arrested at that time from the place and in the manner as deposed by him. He also denied the suggestion that neither Khalid had identified the accused nor Khalid had disclosed anything in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that no disclosure statements were ever made by the accused persons in his presence.
13. PW-7 Ct. Sanjeet, deposed that on 15.08.2010 he joined the investigation in the present case along with IO. He narrated about apprehension of accused persons namely Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and Beeru and he deposed on the lines of PW-6 Ct. Vijender. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Gali No. 12 was a FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 8 of 32 residential area. He deposed that he did not remember whether IO had requested the residents of the houses at Gali No. 12 to join the arrest proceedings of accused Vicky @ Ravi. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation in the present case at any point of time or that accused Ravi @ Vicky @ Titi had not been arrested at the time and from the place in the manner deposed by him.
14. PW-8 SI Rakesh Kumar was the second IO in the present case. He deposed that on 05.12.2010 the remaining investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He further deposed that he got the particulars of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-3SJ-7603 verified from Mohd. Shadab, owner of vehicle. He proved the seizure memo of aforesaid motorcycle as Ex. PW-1/C. He also proved seizure memo of copy of RC, insurance and invoice of aforesaid motorcycle as Ex. PW-8/A1 to Ex. PW-8/A3. He also deposed that investigation qua accused Deepak @ Haddi was under progress and he was absconding and thereafter process under Sec. 82/83 Cr.PC were executed against the said accused and accused was declared PO by the Ld. Concerned court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Khalid had produced the abovesaid documents of the motorcycle to him in the police station. He denied the suggestion that he had not fairly conducted the investigation of the present case.
15. PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar, has proved the MLC of injured Khalid as Ex. PW-9/A. He also opined about nature of injury as 'dangerous' on the MLC of injured Khalid. This witness was not FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 9 of 32 cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
16. PW-10 Sh. Rizwan, allegedly was the eyewitness of the incident in the present case. He deposed that victim/injured Khalid was his nephew. He further deposed that on 12.08.2010 at about 10:30 pm, he was standing at the Hotel near Masjid at Aram Bagh, Delhi and in the meantime, Khalid came at a Pan Shop near Masjid on motorcycle to purchase something from Pan Shop. He further deposed that accused persons along with one or two boys came to Khalid and after one or two minutes, an altercation started between Khalid and accused persons and their associates. He further deposed that he did not know the accused persons by name but he knew them by face as they used to visit his shop for fetching milk, curd etc. He further deposed that on seeing altercation, he started going towards Khalid and when he reached near Khalid, he saw blood was oozing from his chest and no one was there. He further deposed that accused persons ran away from the spot before his reaching there and he did not see anyone assaulting Khalid. He further deposed that on seeing the blood oozing from the chest of Khalid, he got scared and ran away from there and reached at Dairy. He also deposed that immediately, Khalid came there in injured condition on his motorcycle and he took him to Lady Harding Hospital on his motorcycle. He further deposed that police recorded his statement and joined him in the investigation and he took the police to the houses of the accused persons but no one was found FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 10 of 32 present at their houses. He narrated about apprehension of accused Mukesh @ Lambu along with two other person and seizure of blood stained shirt of injured. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he denied the suggestion that he saw that accused Mukesh @ Lambu slapped Khalid, accused Deepak @ Haddi gagged the mouth of Khalid and accused accused Ravi @ Titi stabbed Khalid with knife. This witness was confronted with his statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-10/PX-1. He admitted that arrest memo Ex. PW-5/A and personal search memo Ex. PW-5/B bear his signature at points 'B' or that he had signed the same at the spot i.e. the place of arrest of accused Mukesh. Voluntarily, he again said, he had signed the same in the Police Station. He also denied the suggestion that accused Mukesh had made disclosure statement in his presence. However, he admitted that disclosure statement, Ex. PW-10/PX2 bears his signature at point 'A'. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
17. PW-11 Inspector Harpal Madan was the first IO in the present case. He deposed that on receiving DD No. 31A, Ex. PW-11/A regarding shifting of one Khalid, S/o Sh. Irfan in Lady Harding Medical College due to injuries suffered by him in a quarrel, he along with Ct. Ravinder went to Lady Harding Medical College where Khalid was found admitted. He further deposed that he collected MLC No. 25297/10 of injured Khalid on which nature of injury was reserved and the injured was found FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 11 of 32 fit for statement. He further deposed that he recorded statement of complainant Sh. Khalid, Ex. PW-1/A and on the basis of his complaint, he prepared rukka, Ex. PW-11/B and got the present FIR registered at PS Paharganj. He further deposed that he went to the spot of incident and made inquiry from public but no eyewitness could be found. He further deposed that he again visited the hospital where injured Khalid introduced one Rizwan as eyewitness of the incident. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Rizwan, Ex. PW-10/PX-1 and went in search of accused persons along with Rizwan. He narrated about apprehension of accused namely Mukesh @ Lamboo at instance of Rizwan and proved his arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement as Ex. PW-5/A, Ex. PW-5/B and Ex. PW-10/PX-2. He also narrated about apprehension of accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and Beeru at instance of accused Mukesh @ Lamboo and proved their arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements as Ex. PW-6/A to Ex. PW-6/F. He also narrated about preparation of site plan, Ex. PW-11/G at instance of injured Khalid. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the alleged weapon of offence could not be recovered. He denied the suggestion that Rizwan had not pointed out towards accused Mukesh or that he was lifted from his house or that accused had been falsely implicated or that injured was not attacked with any weapon. He admitted that many public persons were present from where accused Mukesh has been shown to be allegedly arrested and no public person was got joined at the time of arrest. He admitted that call, Ex. PW-11/A was with respect to FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 12 of 32 quarrel. He denied the suggestion that injured was not fit for statement when he recorded his statement.
18. PW-12 Mohd. Shadab, was the maternal uncle (mama) of injured. He deposed that in the year 2010 his Bhanja namely Khalid was residing at Aram Bagh and was running a milk diary and he used to visit his diary. He further deposed that he did not remember the date and month, however it was the year 2010 when he visited the diary of Khalid and he was on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-3SJ-7603. He further deposed that Khalid took his said motorcycle to Masjid for namaz and on that day at the night time, someone hit the Khalid by knife. He further deposed that he was the registered owner of the said motorcycle, therefore, police official inquired from him and recorded his statement. On putting leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he admitted that on 12.08.2010, his bhanja namely Khalid took his motorcycle to Masjid. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no incident had taken place in his presence.
19. During trial, accused persons namely Mukesh @ Lambu and Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi had admitted the genuineness of MLC, Ex. PW-9/A, of injured Khalid, prepared by Dr. Jai Prakash as well as chest x-ray report of injured Khalid as Ex. D-1.
20. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied all the charges against him. Accused claimed that this was a false case against him because he was the friend of co-accused Mukesh @ Lambu and due to personal FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 13 of 32 enmity, he was involved in the present case. He further claimed that he had never caused any injury to the victim/complainant and at the time of the alleged incident, he was at his home. Accused did not lead any defence evidence in the present case.
21. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. S. N. Shukla, Ld. Amicus Curie for accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi.
22. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid has completely supported the case of the prosecution. He also argued that PW-10 Sh. Rizwan has also supported the case of prosecution with respect to the alleged incident though he has turned hostile on the identity of accused persons. He also argued that PW-12 Mohd. Shadab has also corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid by deposing that his motorcycle was in possession of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid at the time of incident. He also argued that PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar has proved the MLC of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and has also opined the nature of injury on his person as 'dangerous' in nature. He also argued that accused has not taken any defence. He also argued that the all the proceedings have been duly proved by the police witnesses and the prosecution witnesses are of the sterling quality and hence accused should be convicted under Section FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 14 of 32 307/34 IPC.
23. Per Contra Ld. Amicus Curie for accused argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that victim and accused were known to each other. He further argued that PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid himself went to the hospital and the opinion given by the doctor regarding the nature of injured as 'dangerous' is doubtful. He also argued that there is no bone injury on the person of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid. He also argued that earth control were not seized by the IO. He also argued that weapon of offence i.e. knife has not been recovered from possession of accused. He also argued that PW-10 Sh. Rizwan has turned hostile. He also argued that the motorcycle does not belong to PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and his testimony is suffering from material contradictions. He also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts, accused should be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307/34 IPC.
24. In the present case, charge under Sec. 307/34 IPC has been framed against the accused. This Section has been elaborated as under:-
307. Attempt to murder:-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 15 of 32 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is cause 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 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.
25. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Amicus Curie for accused.
26. PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and PW-10 Sh. Rizwan are the star witnesses of the prosecution as PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid is the injured in the present case while PW-10 Sh. Rizwan is the eyewitness of the alleged incident. The testimonies of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and PW-10 Sh. Rizwan have to be appreciated as per the established principles of law. FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 16 of 32
27. The first information regarding the incident was received at PS Paharganj on 12.08.2010 at about 11:30 pm vide DD No. 31A, Ex. PW-11/A. As per the contents of said DD, PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid, S/o Sh. Irfan, aged about 18 years was admitted to Lady Harding Medical College in injured condition which he had sustained in a quarrel. As per MLC of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid, Ex. PW-9/A, he was admitted to the hospital with the alleged history of assault. Thus, before the recording of statement of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid, it was clear that he had sustained injury in a quarrel and he had been assaulted by someone.
28. PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid deposed that on 12.08.2010 at about 10:30 pm, he was going to his shop from Aram Bagh Mosque and when he reached near his motorcycle parked near the Mosque, accused Mukesh @ Lambu (since deceased), Ravi @ Titi and Deepak @ Haddi (since not arrested) to whom he previously knew came there. He also deposed that accused Ravi asked him to give his motorcycle to him for a ride which was refused by him on which, accused Mukesh @ Lambu (since deceased) slapped him and when he raised alarm accused Deepak @ Haddi (since not arrested) pressed his mouth and accused Ravi @ Titi took a knife and assaulted him from the knife and thereafter all the three fled away from the spot of incident. PW-10 Sh. Rizwan has corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid by deposing that on 12.08.2010 at about 10:30 pm, when he was standing at a hotel near Masjid at FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 17 of 32 Aram Bagh, accused persons along with one or two other boys came to Khalid and after one or two minutes, an altercation started between Khalid and accused persons and their associates and on seeing altercation he started going towards Khalid, he saw that blood was oozing from chest of Khalid and no one was there. Thus, from the testimonies of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and PW-10 Sh. Rizwan, it has come on record that the alleged incident took place near Masjid, Aram Bagh, Paharganj, Delhi and some persons had altercation/quarrel with PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and they had caused injury on his person due to which blood started oozing from his chest.
29. PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid has specifically deposed that accused Mukesh @ Lambu slapped him, accused Deepak @ Haddi pressed his mouth and accused Ravi @ Titi assaulted him with a knife in his chest. The first examination-in-chief of PW-10 Sh. Rizwan was recorded on 20.05.2022 and on that day, accused persons namely Mukesh @ Lambu and Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi were produced from JC and PW-10 Sh. Rizwan while identifying both the accused persons had specifically deposed that accused persons who are present in the court today along with one or two boys came to Khalid and altercation started between them and thereafter he saw blood oozing from the chest of Khalid. Thus, both the PWs have correctly identified the accused persons in the court during the trial. However, PW-10 Sh. Rizwan deposed that he did not see anyone assaulting Khalid. PW-10 Sh. Rizwan has not deposed that any other person other than accused persons FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 18 of 32 came there and assaulted PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid. PW-10 Sh. Rizwan has also deposed that he took the police to the houses of accused persons but no one was found there, which means that PW-10 Sh. Rizwan knew the accused persons and since PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid in his complaint, Ex. PW-1/A had specifically named accused persons, he along with police went to the house of accused persons who were named in the FIR. In the cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-10 Sh. Rizwan denied the suggestion that he saw that accused Mukesh @ Lambu slapped Khalid, accused Deepak @ Haddi pressed his mouth and accused Ravi @ Titi stabbed Khalid with a knife or that he had stated so to the police. However, he admitted his signatures on the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Mukesh @ Lambu. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons. On the careful perusal of testimony of PW-10 Sh. Rizwan, it has come on record that he has not completely supported the case of prosecution nor he has completely turned hostile. From the testimony of PW-10 Sh. Rizwan, it has come on record that he has seen that PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid had altercation with accused Mukesh @ Lambu, Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and one or two other boys at the spot of incident after which he saw that blood was oozing from chest of Khalid. The testimony of PW-10 Sh. Rizwan cannot be discarded only on the ground that it has some inconsistencies regarding the separate role of each accused as he had seen the alleged incident from a distance. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi along FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 19 of 32 with co-accused namely Mukesh @ Lambu (since deceased) & Deepak @ Haddi (since not arrested) had committed the alleged offence.
30. PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid in his cross-examination deposed that he was taken to hospital by Rizwan who had accompanied him from his shop where he had gone to his shop after the incident. It is pertinent to mention that PW-10 Sh. Rizwan deposed that PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid was working with him at his milk diary. Thus, the shop/diary of PW-1/complainant Khalid and PW-10 Sh. Rizwan was same. PW-10 Sh. Rizwan has corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid by deposing that on seeing the blood oozing from chest of Khalid he got scared and ran away from there and reached to his dairy. He further deposed that immediately Khalid came there on his motorcycle and he took Khalid on his motorcycle to Lady Harding Hospital where police met him. PW-11/IO Inspector Harpal Madan deposed that when he again visited to the hospital, one Rizwan was introduced to him by Khalid and Rizwan claimed himself as eyewitness of the incident. In the MLC of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid, Ex. PW-9/A, it has been mentioned that PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid came to the hospital on his own. IO also met him in the hospital when he again visited to the hospital and he was not present in the hospital when IO visited the hospital for the first time. However, there is complete consistency in the testimonies of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and PW-10 Sh. Rizwan FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 20 of 32 regarding going of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid to his shop/dairy and taking of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid by PW-10 Sh. Rizwan to the hospital and hence their testimonies are reliable.
31. PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid has deposed that accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi demanded his motorcycle for a ride which was denied by him and due to the said refusal, he was stabbed. PW-10 Sh. Rizwan has also deposed that at the time of incident, PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid was having motorcycle and he was taken to the hospital on the said motorcycle. PW-12 Sh. Mohd. Sahdab deposed that motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-3SJ-7603 was registered in his name and said motorcycle was taken to Masjid for Namaj by his bhanja/ PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid where he was stabbed by someone. Thus, from the testimonies of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid, PW-10 Sh. Rizwan and PW-12 Mohd. Sahdab, it has come on record that PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid was using the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-3SJ-7603 at the time of incident and the alleged incident took place due to his refusal for giving the said motorcycle for ride to the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has proved the motive of the commission of offence which is relevant under Sec. 8 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
32. Ld. Amicus Curie for accused has argued that accused had no intention to kill PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid nor any knowledge can be attributed to him that such injury could have caused death of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and hence case FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 21 of 32 does not fall within the purview of Sec. 307 IPC. PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid has specifically deposed that accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi took out a knife and assaulted him with the said knife on his chest. PW-10 Sh. Rizwan also deposed that he saw that blood was oozing from the chest of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid. PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar has proved the MLC, Ex. PW-9/A of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid. As per MLC of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid, he was admitted to the hospital with the alleged history of assault. PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar specifically deposed that he had examined patient Khalid and found that there was stab injury to the right side of anterior chest wall with the measurement of 5 x 3 x 2 cm with breach in pleura. Thus, PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar who is a Medical expert has corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid that he had sustained the stab injury. Since prosecution has proved that the said injury was a stab injury and was caused by a sharp edged weapon, the non- recovery of knife does not affect the case of the prosecution. PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar further deposed that the patient was admitted in the hospital and subsequently right tube thoracostomy was done which was removed after two days. Thoracostomy is a medical procedure where a tube is inserted into the chest cavity to drain air, blood or other fluids from the pleural space i.e. the area between lungs and chest wall. PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar also deposed that the injury on the person of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid was dangerous of nature due to possibility of injury to great vessel of chest. Thus, as per the FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 22 of 32 expert opinion of PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar that the said injury was dangerous to the life of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid. The case of accused does not fall under general exceptions from Sec. 76 to 106 IPC. Since the injury caused on the person of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid had endangered his life, the case squarely falls within the purview of Sec. 307 IPC and intention as well as knowledge to commit murder can be attributed to accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and his associates as they voluntarily caused the said injury on the persons of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid while acting in furtherance of common intention under Sec. 34 IPC.
33. In the cross-examination of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid, accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi has not taken any specific defence and he was given a suggestion that he was not present at the spot of incident at the time of incident. Since the accused has taken the plea of alibi under Sec. 11 of The Indian Evidence Act, the burden to prove the same lies upon him under Sec. 105 & 106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, accused has not produced any evidence nor he has examined any defence witness to prove that he was present elsewhere at the time of incident. In his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi has stated that this was a false case against him because he was friend of Mukesh and due to personal enmity, he was involved in the present case and he had never caused any injury to victim/complainant. It is pertinent to mention that said defence has not been taken by the accused in the cross-
FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 23 of 32 examination of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid nor he has proved any enmity between PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid and co- accused Mukesh @ Lambu (since deceased). It is pertinent to mention that accused Mukesh in the cross-examination of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid had not taken any defence that he had any enmity with PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid. It seems that after the death of co-accused Mukesh @ Lambu, the said defence is only afterthought of accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi. Thus, the defences taken by the accused are vague in nature and he has failed to put any dent on the prosecution story through the said defences.
34. PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid is the injured in the present case. He has specifically deposed against the accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi and co-accused persons (since expired/not arrested) with respect to the injuries caused on his person. There is complete consistency in his statement, Ex. PW-1/A given to the police and his testimony recorded in the Court. The testimony of the injured witness is to be appreciated as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard.
35. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab cited as (2009) 9 SCC 719 while dealing with the evidentiary value of injured witness has observed as under:-
"28. Darshan Singh (PW-4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the Doctor. His testimony could not be brushed FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 24 of 32 aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
36. In 'State of U.P Vs. Kishan Chand', a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends supports to its testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan Vs. State of Haryana)."
37. Nothing has been brought on record by the accused to put any dent on the version of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid. The nature of injury on the person PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid has been opined to be 'dangerous' in nature due to the possibility of FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 25 of 32 injury to the great vessels of chest by PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Kochar. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid had named the wrong persons other than the persons who caused said dangerous injury on his person in furtherance of their common intention. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Cour of India in Jarnail Singh & Ors. (Supra) & Kishan Chand (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that the testimony of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid cannot be discarded without any ground and hence the testimony of PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid being injured is reliable.
38. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence brought on record against him by the prosecution and to accord him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
39. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766 has held that:-
it was the duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances proved against him while making statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance was an additional link in chain of circumstances to sustain charges against you.
FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 26 of 32
40. Similary Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256 has held that:-
if the accused remains silent or in complete denial, the Court can take adverse intense against you.
41. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6 SCC 1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C observed as under:-
"130. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in reply to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65,67,72,75 and 201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code."
42. In the present case, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.PC was recorded and in reply to the most of the questions put to him he has stated either 'it is incorrect' or 'I do not know'.
FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 27 of 32 In answers, he has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was friend of co-accused Mukesh @ Lamboo (since deceased). Accused has not taken any specific defence either in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses or in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by the accused are evasive in nature and he has not explained as to why, the prosecution witnesses have deposed against him or as to why PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid has named him. In these circumstances, applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Neel Kumar (supra), Phula Singh (Supra and Sidharth Vashisth (supra)' this court is of considred opinion that accused has not furnished any explanation for these circumstance hence these circumstances are additional link in the chain of circumstances evidence against him.
43. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
44. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 28 of 32 "22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness.
The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 29 of 32 each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 30 of 32 the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
45. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
46. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
47. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that injured PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid is witness of sterling quality as his version is natural and he has also withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 31 of 32 considered opinion that the testimony of injured PW-1/complainant Sh. Khalid is clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and medical evidence on record and the circumstances. Prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 307/34 IPC against accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi beyond reasonable doubts.
48. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA Date: KHARTA on 21st day of April, 2025 2025.04.21 15:05:48 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:21.04.2025 FIR No. 200/2010, PS: Paharganj, State Vs. Vicky @ Ravi @ Titi Page No. 32 of 32