Delhi District Court
State vs . Wasim @ Rajesh on 20 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 43/2018
CNR No. DLNT010007232018
State Vs. Wasim @ Rajesh
S/o Sh. Jafer @ Jaffar
R/o Footpath Ismail Khan Park,
GTK Road near Nanak Pyau Gurudwara,
Delhi.
Permanent Add:
H.No. 244, Chhoti Gali, Rashid Gate,
Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
FIR No. : 514/2017
Police Station: Model Town
Under Sections: 307 IPC & u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 15/01/2018
Date of institution : 19/01/2018
Date of Argument : 11/09/2019
Date of reservation for order : 11/09/2019
Date on which Judgment pronounced :20/09/2019
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 14/11/2017, at 17:58 hours, GD no. 26A was recorded at PS Model Town, regarding stabbing of a person at petrol pump in front of 'Gurudwara Nanak Pyau'. The contents of said DD were informed to ASI Nagender for taking necessary SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 action, who along with Ct Jitender reached at the spot, where no injured was found. On inquiry, it was revealed that injured had been taken to Deepchand Bandhu Hospital. Accordingly ASI Nagender along with Ct Jitender reached at the said hospital, where ASI Nagender collected MLC of injured Bali, wherein alleged history of physical assault was mentioned and opinion on the nature of injury was reserved. Injured was not found in the hospital as he was referred to higher centre for operative investigation. It was also revealed that he was sent to Hindu Rao Hospital. Accordingly ASI Nagender along with Ct Jitender reached at the said hospital, where injured Bali was declared fit for statement. Accordingly ASI Nagender recorded statement of injured/victim/complainant Bali, wherein he (Bali) stated that he is living on the footpath outside Ismail Khan Park, near 'gurudwara nanak pyau' and is earning his livelihood by begging, where he and other beggars also sleep on the footpath and earn their livelihood by begging. He further stated that one Rajesh @ Wasim (accused herein) son of Jaffar, R/o 244, chhoti gali, Rashid Gate, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P., aged 2425 years, also used to visit there, who is handicapped and roams in his rickshaw for handicapped. Bali further stated that on 13/11/17, said Rajesh @ Wasim was quarreling there whereupon he (Bali) asked him not to do so. He further stated that on 14/11/2017, at about 5.30 p.m., Rajesh @ Wasim came and blamed him for selling his 'baishakhi' and started using abusive language and when he (Bali) objected not to do so, Rajesh @ Wasim took out a knife from the pocket of his pant and stabbed him on his stomach/abdomen as a result of which he sustained injuries, whereafter police took him to Deep SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 Chand Bandhu Hospital and from there he was sent to Hindu Rao Hospital.
2. On the basis of aforesaid statement of Bali, FIR of the present case was registered u/s 308 IPC & u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
3. During investigation, ASI Nagender prepared site plan of the place of occurrence and recorded statements of witnesses. On the basis of secret information, accused Wasim @ Rajesh was apprehended from Azadpur underpass. From his possession, handicap's cycle rickshaw and one knife were recorded, which were taken into possession. Accused made disclosure statement. He was arrested in the present case. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. Accused was produced before the Court and was sent to J.C. Result on the MLC of injured/victim was obtained, which was opined as "dangerous". Accordingly section 308 IPC was converted into Section 307 IPC & section 25/54/59 Arms Act was added. Statement of eyewitness Pooja was also recorded. During further investigation, blood sample of victim/injured Bali along with sample seal was taken into possession. Exhibits were sent to FSL.
4. On completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 308 IPC & u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act was filed against accused Wasim @ Rajesh before the concerned Magisterial Court on 12/01/2018, which was committed to the Court of Sessions on 15/01/2018 and was received on assignment by this Court on 19/01/2018.
SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 175. Vide order dated 15/02/2018, charge for the offence u/s 307 IPC, u/s 27 of Arms Act & u/s 25 of Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During trial, FSL result and subsequent opinion were also obtained. On 18/04/2018, supplementary chargesheet was also filed before the concerned Magisterial Court, which was committed to the Court of Sessions on 10/05/2018 and was received by this Court on 14/05/2018.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution had examined 13 witnesses in all, the details of which are as under: S.N Name of prosecution witness Purpose of examination o.
1 PW1 Bali, Qua the incident in question & injury
victim/injured/complainant sustained by him.
2. PW2 Pooja, Qua the incident in question and as to
eyewitness to the incident. who caused the injury to the injured and
by what weapon.
3. PW3 Dr. Purushottam Kumar Proved MLC Ex. PW3/A of
Roy, CMO, Deep Chand Bandhu victim/injured/complainant Bali. Hospital, Ashok Vihar, PhaseIV, Delhi.
4. PW4 ASI Jitender Kumar, Proved copy of FIR Ex. PW4/A, his duty officer endorsement on rukka Ex. PW4/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/C.
5. PW5 ASI Nagender Singh, Proved the investigation conducted by Investigating Officer him.
SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 176. PW6 Ramesh, Assistant Clerk, Proved notification Ex. PY.
Deputy Secretary Home
(General), Delhi Administration,
Delhi.
7. PW7 Dr. Anil Kumar, Jr. Resident, Who proved the factum of taking of BJRM hospital, Jahangir Puri, blood sample of victim/injured Bali vide Delhi. MLC No. 147838 Ex. PW7/A and handing over the same to IO.
8. PW8 Ct Jitender, Proved the investigation conducted by witness to investigation the IO in his presence.
9. PW9 Dr. N.L. Pawan, Who has proved the subsequent opinion CMO Surgery Department, Hindo Ex. PW9/A (qua the alleged confiscated Rao Hospital, New Delhi. weapon of offence) dated 05/04/2018 given by Dr. Abhijit Acharya, MLC no.
4346/17 of injured Bali Ex. PW9/B and the nature of injuries opined as dangerous by Dr. Abhijit Acharya at point A on MLC Ex. PW9/B.
10. PW10 HC Lakhwinder Who proved the factum of removing the PCR official injured Bali to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, Bharat Nagar, Ashok Vihar and admitting him there.
11. PW11 Ms. Sunita Gupta, Senior Proved the FSL report Ex. PX.
Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi.
12. PW12 Ct Anil Kumar, Who proved the factum of collecting the sealed pullandas from MHC(M) vide RC no. 13/21/18 Ex. PW12/A and depositing the same at FSL Rohini vide acknowledgement receipt Ex. PW12/B.
13. PW13 HC Amit Kumar, Who proved the factum of depositing of the then MHC(M) one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of "NSN" and one cycle rickshaw in the malkhana by the IO vide entry No. 17/27 in register no. 19, photocopy of SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 which is Ex. PW13/A and sending of two sealed pullandas along with one sample seal to FSL Rohini through Ct Anil vide RC no. 13/21/18 Ex. PW13/B and acknowledgement of FSL Ex. PW13/C.
8. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the case of prosecution and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this Case. He further claimed that PW1 Bali is in the habit of committing theft and that he (PW1) committed theft of his 'baishakhi' and sold the same and when he demanded the same from him, he falsely implicated him in the present case. He further claimed that he had not assaulted or abused PW1 Bali.
9. I have heard ld. Addl. PP and ld. Amicus Curiae for accused and perused the record carefully.
10. PW1 Complainant/victim/injured has stated that he is earning his livelihood by begging and he used to sleep mostly on footpath. He further deposed that alongwith him, other baggers also used to sleep on the same footpath in front of Pratap Bagh Gurdwara. He further deposed that accused Rajesh @ Wasim, a handicapped, also used to visit the said Gurdwara on his three tyre cycle. He further deposed that on 13.11.2017, accused Wasim had used abusive language against him and he (PW1) requested him (Wasim) for not doing so, said Wasim left from there. PW1 SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 further deposed that on the next day at about 5.30 pm, accused Wasim came to him and accused him that he (PW1) had sold his 'baisakhi' and when PW1 refused, Wasim started using abusive language against him. He further deposed that suddenly, Wasim took out a knife from his wearing pant and struck the said knife over his abdomen, as a result of which, he bleeded profusely from his abdomen. PW1 further deposed that police took him at one hospital at Ashok Vihar, from where he was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital and there he was operated over his abdomen, where he remained admitted in the said hospital for about 1415 days. He further deposed that during treatment, police met him in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.P1 and has identified his thumb impression at pointA on the same. He has also identified the knife Ex.MO1 as the same with which he was assaulted by the accused.
11. Another eyewitness to the incident Pooja has been examined as PW2. She has stated that she is working as maid in houses and also used to work at Nanak Piau Gurdwara, GTK Road. She further deposed that she was knowing PW1 Bali who used to reside at GTK Road, Ismail Khan Park, near Footpath. She further deposed that she had given some money to said Bali out of her earnings, so that he could keep the said money safely. PW2 further deposed that on 14.11.2017 at about 5 pm, she went to meet PW1 Bali for taking her money back from him and while she was present there, accused Wasim @ Rajesh started using abusive language against her and that when she requested him for not doing so, Wasim @ Rajesh took SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 out a knife and attacked her with the said knife. She further deposed that upon seeing this, PW1 Bali intervened, but accused Wasim @ Rajesh struck the said knife over the abdomen of Bali and after assaulting Bali, the accused managed to escape in his cycle rickshaw. She further deposed that she made a call at 100 number, upon which, police reached there and PCR Van took PW1 Bali to the hospital. She further deposed that during investigation, IO also recorded her statement in this regard. She has correctly identified the accused in the Court and has also identified the knife Ex.MO1 as the one with which PW1 Bali was assaulted by the accused.
12. PW3 Dr. Purushottam Kumar Roy, CMO, Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, Ashok Vihar, PhaseIV, Delhi, has deposed that on 14.11.2017 at around 6.11 pm, one patient namely Bali S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, aged about 63 years male was brought by PCR official namely HC Lakhvinder (PW10) with alleged history of physical assault and he (PW3) conducted the medical examination of the said patient vide MLC no. 4346/17. He further deposed that on examination of the said patient, he found penetrating wound over abdomen 1 cm circular in nature. He further deposed that he prepared the MLC of injured Bali Ex.PW3/A and after initial medical treatment, the said patient was referred to S.R. Surgery for further management and opinion. After seeing the MLC Ex. PW3/A of injured Bali, PW3 has deposed that it is mentioned therein that there was no active bleeding to Bali at the time of examination.
SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 1713. On MLC Ex. PW3/A, there are notings of SR surgery as per which there was wound over umbilical region with ? omentum protruding out. From the surgery department, PW1 Bali was referred to higher centre for operative investigation. The notings of SR Surgery also reveals that there was no active bleeding from the wound present.
14. As per case of prosecution, PW1 Bali after referral to higher centre was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he was examined by Dr. Abhijit Acharya, who prepared his medico legal injury sheet no. 4346/17 dated 25/11/2017, which has been proved on record by PW9 Dr. N.L. Paswan of Hindu Rao Hospital as Ex. PW9/B and he has also proved the nature of injuries opined by Dr. Abhijit Acharya as dangerous (sustained by PW1). PW1 Bali was discharged from the said hospital on 25/11/2017. On the backside of the Ex. PW9/B, there is observation of SR (Surgery) that the exact opinion of whether the crime has been committed with the weapon (brought by police personnel) cannot be made out, so expert forensic opinion has to be taken for the same to determine if the same weapon is used in crime or not. The dimensions of wound and size has been mentioned on the MLC sheet deposited in MRD.
15. As per case of prosecution, DD no. 26A was recorded at PS Model Town regarding stabbing of one person at petrol pump near Gurudwara Nanak Pyau and the said DD was entrusted to PW5 ASI Nagender, who has deposed that on 14.11.2017, he was posted at PS SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 Model Town and was on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm alongwith PW8 Ct. Jitender and on that day, DD No. 26A was marked to him and accordingly, he alongwith PW8 Ct. Jitender went to the place of occurrence i.e. GTK Road, in front of Ismail Khan Park. He further deposed that at the spot, it was revealed to them that injured has been taken to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, Ashok Vihar and accordingly, they went to the said hospital. He further deposed that in the said hospital, he collected the MLC of PW1 injured Bali S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, who was already referred to higher centre for operative intervention and it was revealed that injured had been taken to Hindu Rao Hospital. PW5 further deposed that accordingly, they went to the said hospital and the concerned doctor of Hindu Rao Hospital opined patient Bali (PW1) fit for statement. He further deposed that he recorded his (Bali) statement on the basis of which and also on the basis of contents of MLC, he prepared rukka Ex.PW5/A and handed over the said rukka to PW8 Ct. Jitender, who accordingly went to PS and got the FIR registered. PW5 ASI Nagender further deposed that from the hospital, he came to the spot, where he met PW8 Ct. Jitender who handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that while they were present at the place of occurrence, one secret informer gave information to him that offender Wasim @ Rajesh (accused herein) could meet them at Subway Azadpur, Delhi and accordingly they went to the said place and secret informer pointed out towards accused Wasim @ Rajesh, who was on his cycle rickshaw for handicapped. PW5 has further deposed that they apprehended accused Wasim @ Rajesh, interrogated him, effected SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 his arrest vide memo Ex.PW5/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW5/C. He further deposed that accused Wasim @ Rajesh also made disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D and picked up one knife from under the seat of his rickshaw and produced the same before him (PW5). PW5 further deposed that he measured the said knife, prepared its sketch Ex.PW5/E and mentioned its measurements on the sketch. He further deposed that he also kept the said knife into a cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of 'NSN' and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/F. PW5 further deposed that he also seized the cycle rickshaw vide memo Ex.PW5/G. He further deposed that accused Wasim @ Rajesh also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW5/H. He further deposed that he deposited the case property in Malkhana, recorded the statement of witnesses and accused was remanded to JC. PW5 ASI Nagender further deposed that during investigation on 26.11.2017, he prepared rough site plan Ex.PW5/J at the instance of complainant and also recorded statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of eyewitness Pooja. He further deposed that on 11.01.2018, the concerned doctor of BJRM Hospital took the blood sample of injured Bali and after sealing it, handed over the same to him (ASI Narender) alongwith seal, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/K. He further deposed that exhibits i.e. the sealed pullanda containing blood sample and sealed pullanda containing knife were sent to FSL, Rohini through PW12 Ct. Anil, vide R.C. No. 13/21/18. PW5 further deposed that he collected the FSL result Ex.PX and also obtained result on the nature of injuries of injured. He further deposed that he also collected the SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 notification of Delhi Administration Ex.PY. He further deposed that on completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet as well as supplementary chargesheet. PW5 ASI Nagender has identified knife Ex.MO1 as the one which accused Wasim @ Rajesh got recovered from under the seat of cycle rickshaw and which was seized by him in this case. During his crossexamination, PW5 ASI Nagender has deposed that no blood stains were found lying at the spot and that they made efforts for seizing the clothes of injured, but the concerned doctor/hospital did not provide the same to them.
16. PW8 Ct Jitender has deposed on similar lines as PW5 ASI Nagender Singh. He has also identified the knife Ex. MO1 as the one which was got recovered by accused Wasim @ Rajesh from under the cycle rickshaw and has also identified the cycle rickshaw Ex. MO2 as the one on which accused was sitting at the time of his arrest and has further stated that the accused produced the aforesaid knife from under its seat.
17. As per case of prosecution, during investigation on 11/01/2018, blood sample of PW1 Bali was also obtained from BJRM Hospital, which was taken by PW7 Dr. Anil Kumar vide MLC no. 147838 Ex. PW7/A. The case property i.e. sealed pullanda of knife and blood sample of PW1 Bali along with sample seal were sent to FSL Rohini through PW12 Ct Anil Kumar vide RC no. 13/21/18 Ex. PW12/A on 17/01/2018, which were marked to PW11 Ms. Sunita Gupta, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 Rohini, Delhi, for biological and DNA analysis. As per FSL report Ex. PX, blood was detected on Ex. 1 i.e. knife and Ex. 2 i.e. gauze cloth piece of injured. DNA analysis of the same was also conducted and male DNA profile was generated from the source of Ex. 1 (knife) & Ex. 2 (gauze cloth piece). DNA (STR) profile performed on Ex. 1 & Ex 2 was sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source of Ex. 2 i.e. gauze cloth piece of injured, was similar with the DNA profile generated from the Ex. 1 i.e. knife.
18. Subsequent opinion on the weapon of offence i.e. knife was also obtained, which was given by Dr. Abhijit Acharya on 05/04/2018. PW9 Dr. N.L. Paswan has proved the said subsequent opinion as Ex. PW9/A. As per opinion of Dr. Abhijit Acharya, after examination of the given weapon and details of the case records and medico legal injury report, he was of the opinion that the injury mentioned was most likely to have been caused by the weapon sent to him for examination i.e. one sharp cutting weapon with two sharp cutting blades attached with steel handle and two wooden grips and a source of light.
19. The most important witness of the prosecution is PW1 complainant/injured Bali. In his testimony, he has specifically incriminated accused Wasim @ Rajesh as the one who had caused stab injury with knife in his (Bali's) abdomen when complainant asked him not to quarrel. The ocular testimony of complainant/injured PW1 Bali is corroborated by his SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 medical evidence. It transpires from his medical evidence that he remained admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital due to the said stab injury in his abdomen for 12 days i.e. from 14/11/2017 to 25/11/2017 and the injury was opined as dangerous. The said injury does not appear to be selfinflicted or accidental. No material has been brought on record by the accused to doubt the veracity of the testimony of PW1 Bali and his medical evidence. In such a scenario, it is beyond comprehension as to why the complainant/injured PW1 Bali would falsely incriminate the accused as culprit as is the claim of the accused and shield the real culprit specially when no previous enmity with the complainant has been alleged. The bald version of the accused that the complainant had committed theft of his 'baishakhi' and that is why he implicated him falsely, does not appear to be believable in the absence of any other material to the said effect specially any complaint of the accused qua stealing of the said 'baishakhi' by the complainant. Furthermore, PW2 Pooja has corroborated the testimony of PW1 Bali on all material points including the fact that the complainant/victim PW1 Bali was stabbed in his abdomen by the accused with a knife. I do not find any force in the argument of ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused that since the complainant/PW1 Bali has stated aforesaid different reason for quarrel with the accused, therefore his testimony is liable to be discarded. Ld. Amicus Curiae has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW2 Pooja, who has stated that when she demanded her money back from accused, he started using abusive language with her and on being asked not to do so, he (accused) took out a knife and attacked her and when Bali SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 (complainant/PW1) intervened, accused struck the said knife over the abdomen of Bali. She has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid discrepancy in the testimonies of PW1 Bali and PW2 Pooja qua the cause of quarrel, there testimonies are liable to be rejected. However I do not find any force in the said submission. Merely because of aforesaid minor variation in the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 regarding cause of quarrel, there testimonies on material points including as to who caused the injury to whom and by what weapon, which appeares to be consistent and trustworthy, cannot be rejected.
20. There is no force in the argument of ld. Amicus Curie that since one Raja, one rickshawwala and other beggars were present at the spot at the time of occurrence but were not made witnesses, therefore the case of prosecution is doubtful and the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 being interested witnesses, are liable to be discarded. It is well settled that evidence is to be weighed and not to be counted. Once there were two eye witnesses to the incident i.e. PW1 complainant/injured Bali and PW2 Pooja, it was not obligatory for the investigating agency to make all persons present at the spot as witnesses to the case. It is also common knowledge that people are reluctant to become witness in such matters for fear of inviting trouble or fear of them having to make rounds of the courts. Also in case the accused thought that the testimony of any of the such persons was essential, he could have examined them in his defence, which is not the case herein.
SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 1721. Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused has also submitted that as per MLC of the complainant (PW1), no active bleeding from his wound was found present. However merely on that ground, it cannot be presumed that the injury was old or that the said injury was not suffered by the complainant in the incident in question. The blood oozing out from the injury may have been clotted by the time the doctor had examined him or at the time of preparing the MLC of the complainant/PW1 Bali. Furthermore, neither the doctor has opined the said wound as old nor any other material has been brought on record by the accused to show that the said injury was old or was not suffered in the incident in question. Also PW1 Bali and PW2 Pooja have identified the said recovered knife as the one with which the accused had caused the injury to the complainant. Furthermore from the FSL report Ex. PW12/A, it stands established that the blood stain on the said knife was that of complainant. Also, from the subsequent opinion Ex. PW9/A, it stands established that the said knife in question was probably used in causing the injury in question to the complainant/injured.
22. From the testimony of PW5 ASI Nagender Singh, it stands established that the accused was arrested on 14/11/2017 and pursuant to his disclosure, the accused got recovered the knife used in the commission of offence from under the seat of his rickshaw. PW8 Ct Jitender has corroborated the version of PW5 ASI Nagender Singh qua the recovery of the said knife from the possession of the accused. Merely because there is no independent public person to the said recovery, the said recovery cannot SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17 be discarded. Furthermore, since the said recovery was effected at the instance of the accused from under the seat of his rickshaw pursuant to his disclosure statement, which was only known to the accused, therefore the said recovery would amount to discovery of a fact u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and hence admissible.
23. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the accused had caused the injury in question with the dangerous weapon i.e. knife on the vital part i.e. abdomen of PW1 Bali. From the nature of injury and the time period of 12 days spent by the injured/PW1 Bali in Hindu Rao Hosptial, it is evident that the said injury was serious in nature which could have caused his death. Thus intention on the part of the accused can be inferred in causing the said injury. Also the recovery of the aforesaid knife (at the instance of accused) in contravention of notification Ex. PY of Delhi Administration has been proved on record by the prosecution. Thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused. Accordingly, accused is held guilty for the offences u/s 307 IPC & u/s 27 & u/s 25 of Arms Act.
29. A copy of the judgment be supplied to convict immediately free of cost. Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2019.09.20 16:44:47 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Ashutosh Kumar) On 20/09/2019 Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North) Rohini Courts: Delhi SC No. 43/2018 FIR no. 514/2017 PS Model Town State Vs Wasim @ Rajesh Page 17 of 17