Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh Anr on 13 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
DLSE010010092015
Sessions Case No.1967/2016
FIR no.56/2015
Police Station: Chitranjan Park.
State
Versus
(1) Rajesh
Son of Late Mam Chand Sharma,
Resident of House No.80, D-Block, Gali No.4,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
(2) Irshad Ali
Son of Shri Shokat Ali
Resident of House No.902, Gali no.10
K-Block, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi ....... Accused Persons.
Date of Institution : 08.05.2015
Judgment reserved on : 06.09.2024
Date of Decision : 13.09.2024
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 1 of 42
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer- in-charge of the police station Chitranjan Park before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offence under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused persons, namely, Rajesh and Irshad Ali for having committed the said offence and to proceed with committal of the case.
2. As per the police report on 09.02.2015, this case FIR was registered in the police station Chitranjan Park for the offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC.
3. As per the police report, on 09.02.2015 on receiving a DD No.13A 09.02.2015 regarding "two boys having stabbed a girl fled away", Sub-Inspector Birender Singh along with Constable Bobby reached the spot i.e. Outer Ring Road Pampose Enclave Bus- stand B-Block, C.R. Park, and on inquiry, came to know that one girl had been stabbed in front of house No. B-279, so, he reached in front of house no. 279 and found that a lot of blood was lying on the road and a little ahead, in front of House No. 278 service lane opposite the House No. B-278, C.R. Park, one helmet and one blood-stained knife whose blade was bent, was found behind white colour Maruti car. It is further reported in the police report that it State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 2 of 42 came to know that the injured had already been taken to hospital but no eyewitness was found at the spot and in the meantime, Head Constable Suresh reached at the spot.
4. It is further reported in the police report that in the meantime, upon receipt of another DD No.17A regarding MLC No.473878/15 of injured Reena Rawat from Trauma Center, AIIMS, Sub-Inspector Birender Singh, leaving Head Constable Suresh and Constable Bobby for preserving the spot, went to the Trauma Center, AIIMS and obtained MLC No.473878/15 of injured Reena Rawat from the hospital on which, the result was kept pending investigation and the doctor declared her 'unfit for statement'. It is further reported in the police report that Sub-Inspector Birender Singh searched a lot for the eyewitness in the hospital also but no eyewitness was found, so, he returned to the spot.
5. It is further reported in the police report that pursuant to the information already given, crime team also reached at the spot and inspected the spot and took photographs of the spot. It is further reported in the police report that the blood-stained knife whose blade was bent and handle was wrapped with a black colour tape and a helmet of blue-black colour on which Zeenex was written, recovered from the service lane and a coat of grey colour having cut mark by knife with a tag "al>ali by Madu" was found and the blood lying in front of House No. B-279 C.R. Park were taken into police possession and Sub-Inspector Birender Singh searched the spot State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 3 of 42 thoroughly and found a black purse under a car parked near the spot and on opening and checking it, one License and PAN Card of Rajesh Sharma son of Mam Chand R/o Gali No. 4, Sangam Vihar New Delhi were found and all the documents were seized.
6. It is further reported in the police report that due to non- availability of any eyewitness, on the basis of the circumstances and perusal of MLC of the injured, a case under Section 307/34 was made out and the investigating officer, after getting the case registered, carried on the investigation and prepared site plan, thereafter, the investigating officer visited Trauma Center, AIIMS again but injured was found 'unfit for statement' however, brother of injured, namely, Sanjay Rawat met and his statement was recorded wherein he stated that a boy, namely, Rajesh who lived in Sangam Vihar used to harass his sister since long, thereafter, Sanjay Rawat was shown copy of driving license found from the recovered purse and asked to identify if he is the same person who used to harass her, to which Sanjay Rawat replied that he is the same person who used to harass her and informed that one day prior to incident, parents of Rajesh brought marriage proposal of Rajesh with Reena to his home but Reena rejected the marriage proposal and there is possibility that due to the said rejection, Rajesh Sharma had committed this crime.
7. As per police report, the investigating officer visited the house of Rajesh Sharma and when the inquiry was conducted from Rajesh Sharma regarding the case, initially, he had denied having State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 4 of 42 any knowledge about the incident but on strict interrogation, Rajesh confessed his crime and told that he had stabbed Reena with a knife in a fit of rage along with his friend Irshad and on being asked about Irshad, Rajesh pointed towards a boy sitting near him to be Irshad who was involved with him in the present case and during interrogation, Irshad had also confessed his crime, therefore, the investigating officer arrested both the accused persons in the present case and prepared all the documents related to their arrest and also informed their relatives about their arrest. It is further reported in the police report that on pointing out by Rajesh, the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident were recovered from under a bed from a room on the ground floor of his house and the above sweater was taken into police possession and at the instance of the accused Rajesh, the motorcycle No. 0DL3SBN 1039 Hero Honda Passion Pro was also taken into police possession.
8. It is further reported in the police report that statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the injured Reena Rawat was recorded wherein she had stated that Rajesh had stabbed her along with his associate and regarding use of knife recovered from the crime scene in the incident, opinion from the was doctor was also asked for whether the injury sustained by Reena Rawat was possible with the said knife to which the doctor opined that it was possible with that small knife, thereafter, various exhibits taken into police custody were sent to FSL for expert opinion regarding which a separate supplementary challan would be filed.
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 5 of 429. It is further reported in the police report that from the investigation conducted so far, sufficient evidences have been collected against the accused persons Rajesh Sharma and Irshad. Therefore, challan against both the accused persons was prepared and filed before the court.
10. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the chargesheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
11. On the police report, on 08.05.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence.
12. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused persons were also produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Copies of police report and other documents were supplied to the accused persons.
13. On 19.05.2015, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.
14. On 03.08.2015, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused persons for their State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 6 of 42 having committed offence punishable under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. The charge was read over and explained to both the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offence charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
16. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumitra Dagar, PW2 Reena Rawat, PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav, PW4 Head Constable Baljeet Singh, PW5 Constable Ashwini, PW6 Women Constable Parmita, PW7 Smt. Shakuntala, PW8 Sanjay Rawat, PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, PW10 Retired Sub-Inspector Sajjan. During prosecution evidence, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.3/1, Ex.3/2, Ex.3/3, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/H, Ex.PW9/I, Ex.PW9/J and Ex.PW10/A; and photographs Ex.PH-1 to Ex.PH-8; and pullandas Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were also tendered in evidence.
17. On 10.01.2024, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C and for their statements.
18. On 22.03.2024, this Court examined the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements were State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 7 of 42 recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., both the accused persons denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons took the defence that they are innocent. It is further stated by the accused persons that they are falsely implicated by the investigating officer. The accused Rajesh expressed his desire to lead evidence in his defence, however, the accused Irshad did not wish to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for DE.
19. In defence, the accused Rajesh examined one witness, namely, Aakash Sharma (DW1).
20. I have heard Mr. Narender Yadav, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Bhajan Singh and Mr. Nirmal Verma, counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
21. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumitra Dagar, PW2 Reena Rawat, PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav, PW4 Head Constable Baljeet Singh, PW5 Constable Ashwini, PW6 Women Constable Parmita, PW7 Smt. Shakuntala, PW8 Sanjay Rawat, PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, PW10 Retired Sub-Inspector Sajjan; and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.3/1, Ex.3/2, Ex.3/3, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW9/G, State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 8 of 42 Ex.PW9/H, Ex.PW9/I, Ex.PW9/J and Ex.PW10/A; and photographs Ex.PH-1 to Ex.PH-8 and pullandas Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution, it has been proved that the accused Rajesh in furtherance of common intention with co-accused Irshad had caused grievous injury to the person of injured with the knife and thus, committed an offence of attempt to murder and the nature of injuries is corroborated from the MLC of the injured. It is further submitted that the injured had turned down proposal of marriage made by the accused Rajesh due to which the accused inflicted stabbed injuries on the person of the injured and in this way, the motive for commission of offence is also established. It is further submitted that three injuries on the person of the injured were inflicted which are corroborated by MLC. It is further submitted that the accused Rajesh had handed over blood-stained clothes to the investigating officer and in view of the FSL report, it matched with the victim's blood. It is further submitted that subsequent opinion about the use of knife was obtained. It is further submitted that the accused persons have admitted MLC, subsequent opinion, statement of injured under section 164 Cr.P.C and the FSL result. It is further submitted that evidence of brother and mother of injured have corroborated to the statement of injured.
22. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused Rajesh has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Assistant Sub- Inspector Sumitra Dagar, PW2 Reena Rawat, PW3 Constable Bobby State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 9 of 42 Yadav, PW4 Head Constable Baljeet Singh, PW5 Constable Ashwini, PW6 Women Constable Parmita, PW7 Smt. Shakuntala, PW8 Sanjay Rawat, PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, PW10 Retired Sub-Inspector Sajjan; and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.3/1, Ex.3/2, Ex.3/3, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E, Ex.PW9/F, Ex.PW9/G, Ex.PW9/H, Ex.PW9/I, Ex.PW9/J and Ex.PW10/A; and photographs Ex.PH-1 to Ex.PH-8 and pullandas Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and the law laid down in the judgment in State of U.P. v. Anil & Ors., Government Appeal No.7204 of 2010 and submitted that as per the statement of the injured, she had not disclosed anything to Deepa, who had taken the injured to the hospital, however, it is not explained how family members of the injured got to know about the incident. It is further submitted that the incident happened at 11.00 a.m. and FIR was registered three hours after the incident wherein it was not recorded that purse of the accused was recovered. It is further submitted that there are cut marks on the backside of the coat of the injured whereas she has suffered injuries on the front side of her body. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine Deepa who had taken injured to the hospital.
23. It is submitted that by counsel for the accused Irshad that as per the statement of the injured, she had seen the accused Irshad who was ten feet away and he did not do anything.
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 10 of 4224. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
25. The accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. Section 307 reads as follows:
"307. Attempt to murder. - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.-- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death."
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a 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."
26. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
27. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined ten (10) witnesses.
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 11 of 4228. PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumitra Dagar has deposed that during her duty hours as duty officer, at about 03.10 p.m., Constable Bobby had brought a rukka for registration of FIR sent by Sub-Inspector Birender Singh and on the basis of the said rukka, he had recorded the present FIR (Ex.PW1/A) by getting typed through computer operator and he had also made an endorsement (Ex.PW1/B) on the rukka and after registration of the FIR, copy of the same along with the original rukka was given to the Constable Bobby for handing over the same to Sub-Inspector Birender Singh for further investigation.
29. PW2 Reena Rawat (the injured) has deposed that she was working as Receptionist at Great Value Food Company situated at Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi and she had met Rajesh three to four year before the incident and they started meeting regularly and Rajesh had proposed her for marriage. It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that initially, behaviour of Rajesh was good but later on, his behaviour had changed and he started using abusive language and demanded money from her, due to which, the injured started avoiding him but he kept on regularly following her and she had made complaint against him in the police stations Neb Sarai and Madangir but no action was taken by the police. It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that Neb Sarai police had compelled them for compromise but the compromise was effective for two-three days, thereafter, he again started chasing her and abused her. It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that parents of the accused Rajesh State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 12 of 42 had come to her house and they talked to her father regarding marriage, but she had not agreed to proposal of marriage with Rajesh and her parents had made the parents of the accused Rajesh understand not to pursue for the marriage and the parents of the accused Rajesh had also agreed to it.
30. It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that on 08.02.2015, parents of the accused Rajesh had come to her house with marriage proposal and at that time, she was alone in her house and she had refused their marriage proposal. It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that on 09.02.2015, while she was going to her duty from her house and when she got down from the bus at Pamposh Enclave Enclave Bus Stop after crossing foot-over bridge and reached at service lane at about 10:30 a.m., the accused Rajesh along with the accused Irshad had come to her after parking his motorcycle behind the car and inquired from her as to what she told to his parents the previous day to which she replied, "mujhe jo khena chahiye tha, wahi maine kha tha". It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that on hearing her reply, the accused Rajesh got angry and taken out a knife from his backside and Irshad had told Rajesh, "apna kaam khatam karke, jaldi se nikal le", thereafter, the accused Rajesh told PW2 Reena Rawat, "Teri to main aaj yehi bajata hun aur tu kisi aur ko mana karne layak nahi bachegi" and he started attacking her with the knife on her person. It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that the accused Rajesh stabbed on her stomach with the knife and on her backside and caused five stab State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 13 of 42 injuries on her body due to which she fell down on the road and they ran away from the spot by the motorcycle. It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that she had become unconscious and when she regained her consciousness, she found herself at the Trauma Center, AIIMS and was discharged from there on 06.03.2015.
31. It is further deposed by PW2 Reena Rawat that on 24.03.2015, she had come to Saket Courts where her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded. PW2 Reena Rawat has correctly identified the accused persons Rajesh and Irshad in the Court. PW2 Reena Rawat further deposed that she is still under treatment and her next operation would be conducted in the month of November or December, 2015.
32. PW2 Reena Rawat has also identified her cloths viz., one jean, one lady top, one brassier, one underwear and one gauze (Ex. P-1 (colly) and her coat (Ex. P-2).
33. During her examination-in-chief, a leading question was put PW2 Reena Rawat on the point of identification of knife but she could not identify the knife, however, she had identified the photographs (Ex.PH-1 to Ex.PH-8) of the spot.
34. PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav deposed that on 09.02.2015, DD No. 13-A was received in the police station upon which he along with Sub-Inspector Birender Singh went to B-278, Chitranjan Park and Head Constable Suresh was also with them. It is State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 14 of 42 further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that he saw that one blood-stained coat and one knife was lying on the spot and there was no eye-witness was found. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that from the local enquiry at the spot, it was revealed that injured has been removed to the hospital and Sub- Inspector Birender Singh left Constable Bobby Yadav and Head Constable Suresh at the spot, went to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that after sometime Sub-Inspector Birender Singh came back at the spot and in the meantime, the crime team officials also reached at the spot, took the photographs of the spot from different angles and prepared a report and handed over the same to Sub-Inspector Birender Singh. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that Sub-Inspector Birender Singh prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR and after getting the FIR registered, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR along with rukka to the investigating officer Sub- Inspector Birender Singh. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that the police team took the search of the nearby area and found one white colour maruti car parked near house No. B-278 where one helmet was also lying. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that one purse was also lying under the car and the said helmet and the purse was seized by the investigating officer from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW3/2, thereafter, he along with investigating officer Sub-Inspector Birender Singh Singh went to Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital, State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 15 of 42 where one person namely Sanjay, the brother of the complainant namely Ms. Reema met them. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that investigating officer made enquiries from Sanjay and Sanjay told that one person namely Rajesh was harassing his sister since long. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that investigating officer took out a photograph from the purse seized from under the car and showed the same to Sanjay to which he identified and said that he is accused Rajesh who was harassing his sister for since long. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that investigating officer went inside the room where the injured Reena was admitted and after sometime, investigating officer came out from her room, he along with investigating officer and Head Constable Suresh went to the area of Sangam Vihar in search of accused Rajesh. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that they went to the house of Rajesh where accused was present along with his friend Irshad and the investigating officer made enquiries from both Rajesh and Irshad and they had confessed their guilt. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that the investigating officer arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B, personal search of both the accused persons were conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C of accused Rajesh and Ex.PW3/D of accused Irshad and their disclosure statements were recorded. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that during interrogation accused persons disclosed that they had used motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3S-BN-1039 in the State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 16 of 42 commission of the offence and both the accused got recovered the abovesaid number motorcycle from near their house and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/3, thereafter, case property was deposited in malkhana.
35. PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav has further deposed that both the accused persons were taken to AIIMS Hospital for their medical examinations and after their medical examination, they were brought to police station Chitranjan Park and were kept in the police lock up. It is further deposed by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer and both the accused persons were correctly identified by PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav. PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav has correctly identified one black colour purse containing Rs.2,510/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred ten only) (two currency notes of one thousand denomination, one currency note of five hundred denomination and one ten rupees denomination) along with one driving licence of Rajesh Sharma son of Mam Chand, one PAN card in the name of Rajesh Sharma, one bank slip of Axis Bank and some visiting cards and receipts and deposed that it was the same purse which was recovered under the car parked near the House No. B-278 vide Ex.P- 1 (colly.). PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav also correctly identified the helmet of Zeenex blue and black colour and deposed that the same was recovered near House No. B-278, Chitranjan Park vide Ex. P-2. PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav also identified the knife Ex. P3 and blood-stained coat Ex. P2.
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 17 of 4236. PW4 Head Constable Baljeet Singh deposed that on 09.02.2015 at about 11.20 a.m., an information was received from control room that two boys had stabbed a girl near Pampose Enclave, Bus Stand and they fled away from the stop and on the basis of said call, he reached on service road in front of B-278 near Pampose Enclave, Bus Stand. It is further deposed by PW4 Head Constable Baljeet Singh that when he reached at the spot, he found some person who had informed him that the injured had been removed to the hospital by a TSR. It is further deposed by PW4 Head Constable Baljeet Singh that at the spot, one knife, one gray colour coat were found and Sub-Inspector Birender had come at the spot who had picked up the knife and coat from the spot which he had handed over to investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW4 Head Constable Baljeet Singh that his statement was recorded by the IO and PW4 Head Constable Baljeet Singh has correctly identified the knife and coat.
37. PW5 Constable Ashwini deposed that on 09.02.2015, he was working as photographer in Mobile Crime-Team, South-East District and on that day, he along with Mobile Crime-Team went to the place of occurrence i.e. near B-278, Chitranjan Park, where blood was spread and a blazer (coat) was lying along with some other articles. It is further deposed by PW5 Constable Ashwini that he had clicked photographs of the scene as per the instruction of the investigating officer and total eight (8) photographs were clicked. It is further deposed by PW5 Constable Ashwini that he had handed State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 18 of 42 over negatives of the photographs to the investigating officer and also correctly identified eight (8) photographs Ex.PH-1 to PH-8 along with negatives which were clicked by him.
38. PW6 Women Constable Parmita deposed that on 09.02.2015 at about 11:19 a.m., he had received an information that a girl was stabbed at Chitranjan Park, Pamposh Enclave Bus stand and the said information was reduced into writing vide PCR form (Ex.PW-3/A).
39. PW7 Smt. Shakuntala deposed that she had been residing in Sangam Vihar for the last 30 years with her family and she had one son and three daughters and her daughter Reena divorced for the last 5 years so she was residing in her house and she was working in a private office in Nehru Place. It is further deposed by PW7 Smt. Shakuntala that four-five years before the incident, Reena had met Rajesh and they had developed cordial relation with each other but after some time, her daughter had come to know that Rajesh was not a good person by character so she had started maintaining distance from Rajesh. It is further deposed by PW7 Smt. Shakuntala that once parents of Rajesh had come to her house to talk about the marriage between Rajesh and Reena but her daughter Reena refused to get married with Rajesh. It is further deposed by PW7 Smt. Shakuntala that on 09.02.2015, Reena had gone to her office and at about 11.00 a.m., PW7 had received a phone call informing that on her way, Reena has been stabbed by Rajesh and State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 19 of 42 she was taken to the Trauma Centre, thereafter, she also went to Trauma Centre. PW7 Smt. Shakuntala correctly identified the accused Rajesh in the court.
40. PW8 Sanjay Rawat deposed that on 09.02.2015, he was present at his home at L-I, 579/11, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and at about 10:30 AM-11:00 a.m., his younger sister Meenu Rawat had received a call from the friends of his younger sister Reena whereby they informed her sister that a person, namely, Rajesh had stabbed his sister Reena. It is further deposed by PW8 Sanjay Rawat that the said information was conveyed to him by his younger sister Meenu so he had reached at AIIMS Trauma Centre, where, he found that his sister was admitted and he could not communicate with his sister as she was unconscious. It is further deposed by PW8 Sanjay Rawat that his sister was medically examined and the police officials had made enquiry from him and he told the police officials that one person, namely, Rajesh used to harass his sister. It is further deposed by PW8 Sanjay Rawat that family members of Rajesh had come to his home and gave proposal of marriage of his sister but his sister had refused the said proposal. It is further deposed by PW8 Sanjay Rawat that on the next day of the said refusal, Rajesh had given knife blows on the various parts of the body of his sister. It is further deposed by PW8 Sanjay Rawat that her sister had regained consciousness after 15-20 days and he had not make enquiry from his sister pertaining to the incident and the police official had State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 20 of 42 recorded his statement. PW8 Sanjay Rawat has correctly identified the accused Rajesh in the Court by pointing out towards him.
41. PW9 Inspector Birender Singh deposed that on 09.02.2015, upon receipt of DD No.13A regarding stabbing of a girl by two boys, he along with Constable Bobby reached at the spot i.e. B block, Service Lane, CR Park near Pamposh Enclave Bus Stand where no eye-witness was found and they came to know that the injured has been shifted to hospital. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that one blood-stained knife, helmet, blood-stained ladies coat and blood was lying on the road and, in meanwhile, Head Constable Suresh had also reached there. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that on receiving the information regarding MLC vide DD No.17A (Ex.PW9/A) from AIIMS Trauma Center, he gone to AIIMS Trauma Center and found the injured was admitted and the doctor declared her 'unfit for statement'. PW9 Inspector Birender Singh further deposed that no eyewitness was found there so he came back at the spot. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that crime-team had also reached there and inspected the spot. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that photographs were clicked by the crime-team expert and exhibits were lifted from the spot. PW9 Inspector Birender Singh further deposed that he had seized the exhibits through seizure memos (Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW9/B) and sealed the same with the seal of 'BS'. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that he had also seized blood in gauge, State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 21 of 42 earth control and broken helmet and sealed with the seal of 'BS' vide seizure memos (Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW9/C). PW9 Inspector Birender Singh further deposed that one vehicle i.e. Maruti car was also parked there which was searched and one purse containing ID card of Rajesh, cash and other documents were found and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/D). It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that he had prepared the rukka (Ex.PW9/E) and the case got registered through Constable Bobby and, thereafter, Constable Bobby had reached at the spot and handed over him the original rukka and copy of FIR. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that he along with Constable Suresh had gone to AIIMS Trauma Center and doctor had declared her 'unfit for statement'. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that brother of the victim namely Sanjay had met him and his statement was recorded. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that Sanjay was shown the ID card of Rajesh to which Sanjay had identified Rajesh informing that the accused Rajesh had used to harass his sister for compelling her to marry. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that he along with other police officials had gone to the house of the accused Rajesh at his residence at Sangam Vihar and found the accused Rajesh there with his friend i.e. co-accused Irshad. PW9 Inspector Birender Singh further deposed that he had interrogated and arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos (Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B), conducted their personal searches vide memos (Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D) and also recorded their disclosure statements vide State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 22 of 42 memos (Ex.PW9/F and Ex.PW9/G). It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that he had seized the motorcycle of the accused Rajesh from the parking of his house vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/30. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that the accused Rajesh had handed over his blood-stained cloth i.e. sweater which he had taken out from his bed and the accused Rajesh had disclosed that the said cloth was worn by him at the time of incident which was seized by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh and sealed with the seal of 'BS' vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/H). It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that he had prepared the sketch (Ex.PW9/I) of the knife which was lying on the spot and the said knife was found in bent condition, thereafter, they had come back to police station along with both the accused persons and the case properties were deposited with the Malkhana.
42. PW9 Inspector Birender Singh further deposed that on the next day, both of the accused persons were produced in the Court and sent to JC. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that during investigation of this case, he had prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/J) and recorded the statement of the injured and family members of the victim. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that after discharge from the hospital, statement of victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical opinion regarding the use of weapon was obtained from the doctor. It is further deposed by PW9 Inspector Birender Singh that he had recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the charge-
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 23 of 42sheet and filed in the Court. PW9 Inspector Birender Singh had correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court and also identified the knife (Ex. P3) and helmet (Ex. P2) as recovered from the spot. PW9 Inspector Birender Singh had also identified black leather colour purse containing Rs.2500/- (old currency notes), driving licence of Rajesh Sharma and his PAN card and some visiting cards (Ex. P1 colly) as recovered from the spot. PW9 Inspector Birender Singh had also identified white colour sweater (Ex. P4) and deposed that the same was recovered at the instance of the accused from his house and same was worn by the accused at the time of commission of offence which belonged to accused Rajesh.
43. PW10 Retired Sub-Inspector Sajjan has deposed that on 09.02.2015, he was posted as In-charge crime-team of South-East District and upon receipt of information from police control room regarding an assault by knife, he along with Constable Ashwani (photographer) and Constable Chirag (finger print expert) had gone to the spot around 12:30 p.m. and remained there till 01:15 p.m. It is further deposed by PW10 Retired Sub-Inspector Sajjan that they had met Sub-Inspector Birender Singh on the spot and since the place of occurrence was a service road, there was no chance print available. It is further deposed by PW10 Retired Sub-Inspector Sajjan that he had collected one knife, a ladies coat, one helmet, blood-stained soil, earth-control and collected blood in cotton swab from the spot and handed it over to the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW10 Retired Sub-Inspector Sajjan that Constable Ashwani had State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 24 of 42 taken photographs of the crime spot on his instructions and he had prepared his report (Ex.PW10/A).
44. It is also important to note here that during prosecution evidence, on 30.11.2021, the accused persons, namely, Rajesh and Irshad had made their joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced as under: -
We had consulted with our lawyers. We were not disputing the genuineness of the document without admitting their contents:-
MLC No. 473878 dated 09.02.2015 as Ex.Al, subsequent opinion No. 544 dated 25.03.2015 as Ex. A2, statement of Reena recorded under section 164 CrPC on 24.03.2015 by Ms. Neha, the then Ld. MM (consisting of 06 pages) which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A and FSL report No. FSL 2015/B-3559 (R) Bio No.724/16.
The above-mentioned documents will be read into evidence as per Section 294 Cr.P.C.
45. The accused Rajesh has examined one witness in his defence.
46. It is deposed by DW1 Akash Sharma that the accused Rajesh was his friend and he was in the business of export of fabrics. It is further deposed by DW1 Akash Sharma that on 09.02.2015, while he along with the accused Rajesh was sitting at his office, three-four officials had come there and had taken Rajesh along with them, probably, to some police station but he had not accompanied them. It is further deposed by DW1 Akash Sharma that while being State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 25 of 42 taken by the said police officials, the accused Rajesh asked as to why he was being taken by them, they replied that they would tell the reason in police station.
47. In the light of the charge framed against accused persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following is the point for determination:
1) Whether the accused persons have done any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder, and had caused hurt to the injured Reena Rawat by such act.
2) Whether the accused persons, namely, Rajesh and Irshad Ali had acted in furtherance of their common intention had caused injury to the person of the victim.
48. On these points, to prove the commission of offence, the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat, PW8 Sanjay Rawat, PW4 Head Constable Baljit, PW5 Constable Ashwani, PW7 Smt. Shakuntala and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh are relevant.
49. As per the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat, she had met three/four years before the incident and they started meeting each other and the accused Rajesh had proposed her for marriage. It is in the evidence of PW2 that initially, behaviour of the accused Rajesh was good but it changed to intolerable as he started using State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 26 of 42 abusive language and demanding money so, she restricted herself from meeting the accused but the accused kept on following her regularly, therefore, a complaint to that effect was made in the police station Neb Sarai and the matter was compromised but he again started chasing her. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Reena Rawat that parents of the accused Rajesh had come to her house with the proposal of marriage of the accused with her on an early occasion and on 08.02.2015 which were turned down. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Reena Rawat that on the next day i.e. on 09.02.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., on her way to work she alighted the bus at Pampose Enclave and after crossing foot over bridge, when she had reached at service lane, the accused Rajesh along with the co-accused Irshad had come there by a motorcycle and inquired from her as to what she had told to his parents on the previous day to which she replied, "mujhe jo kehna chahiye tha, wahi mene kaha tha" and after hearing her reply, the accused Rajesh got angry and abused her and had taken out a knife from his backside and the accused Irshad had told Rajesh, "apna kaam khatam karke, jaldi se nikal le", thereafter, the accused Rajesh had threatened her by saying, "teri to main aaj yahi bajata hu aur tujhe kisi aur ko mana karne layank nahi bachegi" and he had attacked her with the knife in her stomach and in the back and he inflicted five stab injuries on her body due to which she fell down on the road and the accused persons had run away from the spot; and she became unconscious and regained consciousness in the Trauma Center, AIIMS.
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 27 of 4250. PW2 Reena Rawat has also proved her statement (Ex.PW2/A) under section 164 Cr.P.C. During her examination-in- chief, PW2 Reena Rawat had also identified her five clothes Ex. P1(colly), one coat (Ex. P2) and photographs Ex.PH1 to Ex.PH8.
51. The testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat, the injured have been corroborated by her mother PW7 Smt. Shakuntala and as per testimonies, the injured and the accused Rajesh had cordial relations with each other but after sometime, the injured had come to know that the accused Rajesh was not a good person by character so, she started maintaining distance from him. PW7 Smt. Shakuntala had also corroborated the testimonies of the injured to the effect that parents of the accused Rajesh had come to their house with the marriage proposal but the injured had turned it down. It is also in the evidence of PW7 Smt. Shakuntala that on 09.02.2015, the injured Reena had gone to her office and at about 11.00 a.m., she had received a call informing that on her way, the injured Reena was stabbed by Rajesh and she was taken to Trauma Center, AIIMS. During her cross-examination, PW7 Smt. Shakuntala has also corroborated the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat that one day prior to the incident, parents of the accused had come to their house with the marriage proposal of Rajesh with her daughter.
52. The statement of PW2 Reena Rawat had also corroborated by her brother Sanjay Rawat who deposed that on 09.02.2015 at about 10.30/11.00 a.m., his younger sister Meenu State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 28 of 42 Rawat had received a call from the friend of his younger sister Reena and they informed that one person, namely, Rajesh had given knife blow on the person of the injured Reena so he reached AIIMS Trauma Center where he found his sister was got admitted there and she was in unconscious state. As per the testimony of PW8 Sanjay Rawat, police official had made inquiries from him and he told the police officials that one person, namely, Rajesh used to harass her sister Reena and family members of the accused Rajesh had come to their house with proposal of marriage of his sister but his sister refused such proposal and on the next day, the accused Rajesh gave knife blows on various parts of body of his sister.
53. It is important to note here that during the cross- examination, the question was put to the injured PW2 Reena Rawat by counsel for the accused Rajesh which was admitted by her that she and accused Rajesh were under mutual understanding of their marriage in future.
54. From the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat which are duly corroborated by the testimonies of PW7 Smt. Shakuntala and PW8 Sanjay Rawat and the question put to the injured during cross- examination, it is proved that the accused Rajesh was in relationship with the injured Reena Rawat and the accused was interested in getting married to the injured. From the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, it is also proved that the accused Rajesh and the injured Reena Rawat were State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 29 of 42 also visiting certain places like Surajkund and restaurants. It is in the evidence of PW2 Reena Rawat duly corroborated by PW7 Smt. Shakuntala and PW8 Sanjay Rawat that later on, the injured developed disliking for the accused Rajesh and she had also turned down the marriage proposal given by the accused and his parents. In view of the above, the prosecution has been successful to establish the motive behind commission of the offence.
55. It is well settled law that cross-examination is a matter of substance and not of procedure, one is required to put one's version in the cross-examination of an opponent. The effect of non- cross-examination is that the statement of the witness has not been disputed.
56. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. State (Delhi), 2009 (163) DLT 658 as under:
-
"175. It is settled law that where a witness is not cross- examined on any relevant aspect, the correct- ness of the statement made by a witness cannot be disputed. (See the decisions of Supreme Court re- ported as State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1328 and Rajinder Prasad v. Darshana Devi AIR 2001 SC 3207)."
57. Further, the Hon'ble MP High Court in Moti Lal and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Crl.L.J (NOC) 125 has held that it is a well settled principle of law that when the accused does not challenge a prosecution witness in his cross-examination on State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 30 of 42 certain facts, it leads to inference of admission of that fact. In Moti Lal's case (supra), the Hon'ble MP High Court observed as follows:-
"In Velu Pillai Padikalingam v. Paramandam it was observed; "every cross-examiner should and can if he is careful indicate in cross-examination which- ever part of the evidence given in examination-in- chief is challenged and an omission to do so would lead to the inference that the evidence is accepted subject of course to its being assailed as inherently improbably." Again in Sayed Aleem v. State of Karnataka it was observed that non-cross-examina- tion of prosecution witnesses of certain facts leds to admission of that fact, circumstances could be taken for consideration. Thus, non-consideration, particu- larly P.W3 Achhelal and P.W.4 Bhajna, on what is being projected in the defence has been rightly held by the trial as sheer afterthought."
58. Similarly, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl) 471 held as follows:
"It is a rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the oppor- tunity to put his case in cross-examination it must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted. A decision of the Calcutta High Court lends support to the observation as above. (See in this context AEG Carapiet v. AY Derderian : AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 (P.B. Mukher- jee, J. as he then was)]."
59. In view of the above discussion and in the light of judgments in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), Moti Lal's case (supra) and Sarwan Singh's case (supra), since, PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh were not cross-examined by the defence counsel, therefore, the statements of these witness are deemed to be not disputed.
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 31 of 4260. Regarding registration of this case, the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat (injured), PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumitra Dagar, PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh are relevant. As per the testimonies of PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, on 09.02.2015, on receiving of DD no.13A regarding stabbing of a girl by two boys, they had gone to the spot i.e. B Block, Service Lane, Chitranjan Park near Pamposh Enclave Bus Stand and they had come to know that the injured had already been shifted to hospital. As per the testimonies of PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, on receiving of information regarding MLC vide DD No. 17/A (Ex.PW9/A) from the hospital, investigating officer/Inspector Birender Singh went to AIIMS Trauma Center where injured was found admitted and doctor declared her 'unfit for statement', thereafter, brother of injured met him who identified the photographs of the accused Rajesh and stated that the accused Rajesh used to harass his sister and was compelling to marry accused Rajesh. PW9 Sub-Inspector Birender prepared 'rukka' and got the FIR registered. PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumitra Dagar, as per her testimonies, was working as the duty officer in the police station concerned on the date of incident and she has proved the endorsement made by her on the rukka and got the FIR registered through computer operator. PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumitra Dagar has corroborated the testimonies of PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh regarding registration of FIR.
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 32 of 4261. From the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat, PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumitra Dagar, PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav, PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR against the accused persons. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and during the course of arguments, the registration of FIR against the accused has not been disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.
62. For proving the injuries caused to the person of the injured Reena Rawat, the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat are relevant. In her evidence, the injured Reena Rawat has proved that on the date of incident, while she was on her way to work, the accused Rajesh met her and inflicted injury on her person. It is noteworthy that the accused persons have not disputed and thereby admitted the documents, like, MLC (Ex. A1), subsequent opinion No.54 dated 25.03.2015 (Ex. A2), statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the injured (Ex.PW2/A) and the FSL report (Ex. A3), therefore, these documents can be read in evidence as the accused persons have not denied the genuineness of the documents.
63. As per the MLC (Ex. A1) of the injured Reena Rawat, the nature of injury on his person was opined as 'grievous' and the kind of weapon used to cause the injury was opined as 'sharp'.
64. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 33 of 42 prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies has remained consistent to prove the fact of causing grievous injury on the person of the injured Reena Rawat by a sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife.
65. Regarding arrest and identification of the accused persons, the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat, PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav, PW7 Smt. Shakuntala, PW8 Sh. Sanjay Rawat and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh are relevant.
66. Regarding arrest of the accused persons, as per the testimonies of PW3 Constable Bobby Yadav, PW9 Inspector Birender Singh who, after brief interrogation, arrested the accused persons. These witnesses have also proved the arrest memos (Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B), personal search memo of both the accused persons (Ex.PW3/C of Rajesh), (Ex.PW3/D of Irshad) and disclosure statements (Ex.PW9/F of the accused Rajesh and Ex.PW9/G of the accused Irshad).
67. Regarding identification of the accused, PW2 Reena Rawat (injured), PW3 Ct. Bobby Yadav, PW8 Sanjay Rawat and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh have, during their examination-in- chief, correctly identified the accused persons in the dock.
68. From a conjoint reading of the testimonies of the above prosecution witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that on the date of incident, State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 34 of 42 accused Rajesh had inflicted grievous injuries to the person of injured Reena Rawat by a sharp object i.e. the knife. The injury caused to the person of injured has been duly proved.
69. For the purpose of constituting an attempt under section 307 IPC, the prosecution needs to establish the following two ingredients, namely:-
(i) An evil intent or knowledge
(ii) An act done
70. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case entitled S.K. Khaja v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715 as follow:
"As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State, merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant - Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with overt act committed by the appellant /accused. In the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the appellant/accused had tried to assault the complainant- Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) with Gupti and too on his head. Though the complainant received injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the applicant/accused would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. There being no infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed."State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 35 of 42
71. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. K. Khaja's case (supra), the law is well settled that for conviction for the offence under section 307 of the IPC, what is important is an intention coupled with an overt act by the accused; while grievous or life threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under section 307 of IPC, the intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from the surrounding circumstances.
72. It is important to note here that PW2 Reena Rawat has, during his part examination-in-chief recorded on 04.09.2015, duly proved the incident, the causing of injury by the accused Rajesh to the person of the injured and also duly identified the accused to be the offender who had inflicted injury on his person. On 04.09.2015, his remaining examination-in-chief was deferred for want of blood- stained clothes worn by the injured at the time of the incident and seized by the doctor in the hospital. Her further examination-in-chief was recorded on 27.05.2017 i.e. about 20 months after her first examination-in-chief. On 27.05.2017, during her further examination-in-chief, the injured Reena Rawat (PW2) has duly identified her blood-stained clothes which she was wearing at the time of the incident and on that day, her cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the accused. It is also noteworthy here that cross-examination of the injured Reena Rawat (PW2) was conducted by counsel for the accused on 31.01.2018, 20.02.2018 and 07.03.2018, that was, more than two years and five State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 36 of 42 months after her first examination in chief, wherein the injured had duly proved the incident, stabbing by the accused, injury on the person of the injured and identity of the accused persons to be the offenders. The testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat made during her cross-examination are, at the cost of repetition, reproduced as under:
"I have seen the accused Irshad at the spot of occurrence prior to the incident as he was standing around 10 feet away from me. He did not do anything but said to the accused Rajesh, 'bhai kaam khatam kar jaldi nikal le'."
73. Learned Counsel for the accused Irshad has contended that as per cross-examination of the victim, the accused Irshad had done nothing but he was 10 feet away from the accused Rajesh. The said contention raised by counsel for the accused Irshad is without any substance. From the cross-examination of the victim, it is quite clear that before the accused Rajesh had inflicted injuries on the person of the victim, the accused Irshad had made exhortation by saying, 'bhai kaam khatam kar jaldi nikal le'. The said exhortation was made by the accused Irshad after the accused Rajesh had taken out a knife from his back. On hearing the exhortation by the accused Irshad, the accused Rajesh also said, " teri to main aaj yehi bajata hun aur tu kisi aur ko mana karne layak nahi bachegi". From the words uttered by both the accused persons just before infliction of injuries to the person of the victim by the accused Rajesh, I am of the considered opinion that both the accused persons have acted in concert and in furtherance of their common intention, the accused Rajesh had inflicted injury on the person of the victim.
State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 37 of 4274. Learned counsel for the accused Rajesh has also contended that incident had happened at 11:30 a.m. and the FIR was registered at 3:00 p.m. but it was not recorded in the FIR that purse of the accused Rajesh was found from the spot. The said contention of counsel for the accused is without any substance as from the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the fact of recovery of purse of the accused Rajesh from the spot was specifically stated in the FIR.
75. Learned counsel for the accused Rajesh has also argued that the prosecution has failed to examine one material witness i.e. Deepa who had taken the injured to the hospital. A perusal of MLC Ex.A-1, admitted by accused persons in their joint statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., reveals that it was recorded in the said MLC that the injured was brought to the hospital by a passerby. It is also in the evidence of PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, the investigating officer that when he had gone to the hospital, he found no eye-witness. It is quite obvious that the person who had taken the injured to the hospital left the hospital after getting her admitted without waiting for the police to come. Generally, people help the injured but they do not want to be a witness in legal proceedings. Therefore, such arguments by counsel for the accused is also not relevant.
76. As per the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat, her blood- stained clothes were taken to the doctor in the hospital and in her examination-in-chief, she had correctly identified those clothes Ex. P1(colly.). PW9 Inspector Birender Singh has also corroborated the State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 38 of 42 testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat about seizure of the blood-stained clothes of the injured.
77. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been successful in proving that the accused Rajesh had inflicted grievous injuries to the person of injured Reena Rawat by a sharp object i.e. the knife. The injury caused to the person of injured has been duly proved. In these facts and circumstances and the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused Rajesh on the date of incident had given knife blows in the stomach of the injured. The intention of the accused Rajesh from the said act appears to be very much clear and he in furtherance of their common intention committed overt act of inflicting grievous injury to the person of the injured.
78. Regarding trustworthiness of the injured eye witness, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yogender Singh v. State, Criminal Appeal number 265/2001 as follows:
"28. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind.
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 39 of 42
(c) The evidence of an injured witness is always of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(d) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(e) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
79. There is only one eye-witness of the incident i.e. PW2 Reena Rawat (injured) herself. PW2 Reena Rawat has given his ocular account of this case in his examination-in-chief. The injured did not have animus or grudge against the accused Rajesh. The manner of the incident as described by her is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows the presence of injury in his stomach, attributable to a sharp object. Non-identification of weapon of offence by the injured is of no consequences in the light of her clear testimonies of inflicting injuries to her person by the accused Rajesh. The incident happened on 09.02.2015. Even, the motive to commit offence is also clearly established from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It is in the evidence of PW2 Reena Rawat that due to the injuries inflicted by the accused Rajesh, she had become unconscious. As per the testimonies of PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, investigating officer of this case that when he had visited the hospital on 09.02.2015 and on a subsequent date, the doctor had declared the injured to be 'unfit for statement' on both the occasions. As per the testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat, she was State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 40 of 42 discharged from the hospital on 06.03.2015 which shows that she remained hospitalized for about one month. The nature of injuries on the person of injured PW2 Reena Rawat as described in the MLC (Ex.A-1), admitted by the accused persons, have been shown to be 'grievous'. The above testimonies of PW2 Reena Rawat and PW9 Inspector Birender Singh, investigating officer of this case, the nature and number of injuries, the part of body on which the injuries were inflicted, the weapon used for inflicting injuries, the period of stay of the injured in the hospital are the circumstances, which, in my considered opinion, indicates that the intention of the accused persons was such that if the accused persons had caused her death, both the accused persons would have been guilty of murder. Further, the accused persons have not been able to spell out any plausible reason for his false implications. The testimonies of DW1 Aakash Sharma are of no use for the accused persons to dis-prove the commission of offence by the accused persons.
80. In the light of the evidence and discussion above-stated, it has been proved that there was a relationship between the injured and the accused Rajesh and when injured/PW2 Reena Rawat started maintaining distance from him, the accused Rajesh got annoyed and angry and when she did not accept the marriage proposal made by accused Rajesh and his family members, out of anger and due to rejection, the accused Rajesh had inflicted injuries to the person of the injured/PW2 Reena Rawat. The accused Irshad was associate of the accused Rajesh, accompanied him during the commission of State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 41 of 42 offence and also made exhortation and thereafter, the accused Rajesh had inflicted injuries to the person of the injured. The accused persons have not tendered any reasonable explanation of his conduct.
81. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons Rajesh and Irshad, so the accused persons Rajesh and Irshad are found guilty of having committed the said offence and hence, they are convicted of offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
82. Let the convicts be heard on the question of sentence.
Digitally
signed by DR
DR RAKESH
KUMAR
RAKESH Date:
KUMAR 2024.09.13
05:43:31
+0530
Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
on 13th September, 2024. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi State Vs. Rajesh & Irshad, P.S. Chitranjan Park, U/s 307/34 IPC Page 42 of 42