Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 31 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SHARMA VATS, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04: SHAHDARA: KKD COURTS: DELHI.
CNR No.DLSH01-007333-2017
SC No. 370/2017
FIR No. 94/2017
U/s 307/34 IPC
PS: Seema Puri
State
Vs.
1. Sonu S/o Masicharan
R/o E-52/108, Aradhak Nagar, Seemapuri,
Border Delhi.
2. Monu S/o Masicharan
R/o E-52/108, Aradhak Nagar, Seemapuri,
Border Delhi.
3. Sunder S/o Masicharan
R/o E-52/108, Aradhak Nagar, Seemapuri,
Border Delhi.
Date of committal in the Court of Sessions : 10.11.2017
Final Arguments concluded on : 15.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 31.05.2025
Final Order : Accused persons-
Convicted
u/Sec.307 read with 34
IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Present accused persons namely Sonu, Monu and Sunder have been arraigned as accused to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
Succinctly stated the facts of the case as per the Prosecution are that on 20.02.2017 at about 09:30 pm, complainant Suraj along with his brother namely Ram was coming back from Seemapuri Gym and when they reached near FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 1/60 Aradhak Border, three of their relatives/accused persons namely Sonu, Monu and Sunder (all three are brothers), with whom there was some ongoing tensino, were standing over there; that they threatened him that they will teach a lesson to them. It is further stated that thereafter, accused Monu grabbed him while accused Sunder and Sonu repeatedly hit Suraj with a knife and a sharp edged weapon with an intention to kill him and when Suraj's brother Ram tried to intervene, they also stabbed him as well, with the said knife and the sharp edged weapon; thereafter, all the three accused fled away the scene of crime.
The abovestated statement of the complainant Suraj, got culminated into the present case FIR registered for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
I. INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS:-
2. Perusal of the Chargesheet reveals that IO has stated that he along with Ct. Yogender went to the GTB Hospital where the injured Ram was examined and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded; that he had repeated the version of other injured i.e. Suraj; Thereafter, Dr. handed over one sealed plastic jar to him (IO) in which the iron patti which got struck in the body of injured Ram, was sealed by the doctor. The plastic jar was taken into possession and was deposited in malkhana. Then, search of the accused persons was made and all the accused persons were found present at their house i.e. E-52/108, Aradhak Nagar, Delhi and accordingly, they were apprehended.
Upon filing of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Ld. Trial Court and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons. Thereafter, the file was committed to Ld. Sessions Court, since an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
The then Ld. Predecessor Court framed charge against the accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and the said charge FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 2/60 was read over and explained to them in vernacular, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
II. EVIDENCE LED BY PROSECUTION:-
3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused persons Sonu, Monu and Sunder, for the offence punishable U/s 307/34 IPC, the Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. The following are some relevant excerpts from the testimony of the witnesses:-
i. PW1, Statement of Sh. Ram (one of the injured):- He deposed that he was residing at the given address (Aradhak Nagar, Dilshad Garden, Delhi) for last twenty years and was working as a sweeper for the last twelve years; all the accused persons who were present in the Court were correctly identified by the witness and the witness stated that they were also residents of Aradhak Nagar; that the accused persons were having enmity with his younger brother; that they were residing as a tenant in the house of relative of accused persons; that on 20.02.2017, at about 09:30 pm, when he (PW-1 Ram) alongwith his brother (Suraj) were coming from gym and when they reached near Chauraha, Aradhak Nagar, accused persons met them and threatened them by saying that " aaj ise sabak sikha denge"; then, accused Monu caught hold of his brother Suraj from back side and Sonu and Sunder had assaulted his brother Suraj with knife with the intention to kill him; when he tried to save his brother, accused persons also gave knife and sharp edged weapon blow on his back side; after causing injury, accused persons ran away from the spot. The witness further deposed that the said sharp edged knife remained stuck on his back and when accused tried to take out the said weapon back, handle of the knife came out in the hand of accused and sharp edged portion remained stuck on his back; that he alongwith his brother went to the colony and someone including Pankaj took them to GTB hospital FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 3/60 where they received treatment; that his blood stained cloth and sharp edged weapon were taken into custody by police.
During witness's deposition, MHC(M) had produced one sealed transparent Jar sealed with the seal of hospital containing one sharp edged weapon without handle and same was shown to the witness, seeing which the witness replied that it was the same weapon (P1) which was used by accused Sunder to cause injury on his back.
MHC(M) had also produced one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of hospital, pullanda was opened and found containing one pink colour T-shirt having some brown stains and one cut present on the lower back side of T-shirt, after seeing the same, the witness stated that it was the same T-shirt (P-2) which he worn on the day of incident.
The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and during his cross-examination, the witness interalia deposed that he was not discharged from the hospital on the same very day of his admission but after 7 to 8 days, he was discharged and he again said that he does not remember that how many days he remained in the hospital but he remained admitted for some days. Witness admitted that neither he nor his brother had given any information by dialing no. 100 to the police. He deposed that it was him and not his brother who had gone to his house after the incident and his brother was not in a position to move to the house from the spot; that he informed his father about the incident; that it took about 4 to 5 minutes to reach his home from the spot and immediately, he informed his father and they rushed to the spot; that his parents and other neighbourer reached the spot; he had not made any call from the spot even after arrival of his parents and neighbourer to name the accused as assailants; his father had not called the police in his presence at the spot; his brother was removed to the hospital after arrival of 5 minutes of his parents, neighbourer and him; that it was auto-rickshaw as a mode of conveyance to the hospital; that weapon penetrated in his body was not removed by either by his FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 4/60 father or by Pankaj; the witness voluntarily stated that he had not allowed them to remove as it may bleed.
The witness was questioned that when he was going from spot to his house, whether there was bleeding from his body or it dropped on ground, to which witness replied that when he went from the spot to his house, he was bleeding and his shirt was smearing with blood from the injuries but the blood had not dropped on the ground.
The witness PW-1 denied that he and Suraj might have been assaulted by someone else or that it was darkness and he could not see faces of those assailants. PW-1 further denied that his brother Suraj was not lying at spot in injured condition, when he went to his house from the spot; witness further denied the suggestion that accused persons were not present at the spot or that they had not participated in the alleged crime or that he was deposing falsely against them because of previous enmity.
The witness deposed that he does not remember the timings of arrival of police in hospital; that he had not disclosed to the police in his statement that he went from spot to his house to inform his parents about the incident. He admitted that in his statement to the police, he had also not told his parents that his brother Suraj had fallen at the spot because of injuries. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 21.02.2017 in the hospital but he does not remember the time.
On being questioned that the place of incident is a common thorough place, where auto rickshaw, cycle rickshaw, other public persons and shopkeepers are generally available, the witness replied that it is correct to the extent that it is a common through place, where auto rickshaw and public persons passes through, shopkeepers were also available but cycle rickshaw were not available.
The witness further admitted it as correct that on 19.02.2017, there was marriage of accused's cousin sister Pooja in Hathras, Aligarh (U.P.); that he knows and it is correct that Sonu and Sunder had gone to Hathras, (U.P.) along FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 5/60 with their mother and father to attend the marriage but he was not aware whether Sonu's wife had gone to attend the marriage; that Monu was working in Satmola factory at that time; Bhushan Steel Factory is near Satmola factory, witness voluntarily stated that his father used to work in Bhushan Steel Factory. Witness denied that on 20.02.2017, the said Monu was present in his office/factory or that he has no role at all in the incident or that accused Sonu and Sunder were also not present or that he was deposing falsely in this regard.
ii. PW2, Statement of Sh. Suraj:- The witness deposed that on 20.02.2017, at about 09:00/09:30 pm, he alongwith his brother Ram were coming from the gym and when they reached near Chauraha, Aradhak Nagar, they were on bicycle and accused Sonu (correctly identified by withess) met them and stopped their bicycle and threatened them "aaj tujhe sabak sikha denge"; that accused Sonu caught hold of him from behind and his two brothers Monu and Sunder started assaulting him with knife and sharp edged weapon ( gupti), when he raised alarm, his brother Ram came there, accused Sunder had given a gupti blow on the back of Ram and when accused Sunder tried to take out gupti from the back of Ram, its handle came out in the hand of Sunder, however sharp edged portion of knife/gupti remained stuck on the back of his brother Ram; public persons started gathering there, accused persons ran away from the spot, public persons took them to the hospital where his statement (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded; that he remained in GTB hospital for a period of three months and thereafter, he was shifted to Lala Ram Swaroop hospital, Mehrauli, thereafter, he got treatment in private hospital. The witness correctly identified all the accused persons present in the Court.
The witness identified lower, underwear, track suit, top, t-shirt and white colour vest (brought by MHC(M) in sealed pullanda) as the same clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 6/60 during cross-examination, he deposed that he had given his statement to police and same was recorded by the police on his dictation; that the contents of the statement were read over to him by the police after recording and thereafter, he put his signature at point A. PW-2 admitted it as correct that accused Monu had caught hold of him from behind and accused Sonu and Sunder had assaulted him with knife and sharp edged object with the intention to kill and that due to some confusion, he had deposed in his chief that he was caught hold by Sonu.
During the cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness deposed that it is correct that the place of incident is a common through place accessible by the public; witness further admitted that public persons were passing through that place; that there were about 25 persons gathered and then witness voluntarily stated that no one came forward when incident happened and they (public persons) were looking from distance place. PW-2 further admitted it correct that there were shopkeepers, auto rickshaw driver and cycle-rickshaw puller; that he had not gone to the spot with the police at any point of time after the date of incident; the bicycle was belonging to him; that he had not handed over his bicycle to the police and he was not knowing whether police had seized his bicycle.
On being questioned whether his brother was riding the cycle by sitting in front or on the carrier or rear side, witness replied that there were two bicycles, one was with him and his brother was on his own bicycle.
The witness was read over his entire statement Ex.PW2/A. The witness agreed that in his entire statement, there is no word or reference of bicycle was appearing. He agreed that his statement Ex.PW2/A does not reflect that Sonu threatened him to teach him a lesson; that neither he nor his brother made a call at 100 number to inform the police regarding the incident. PW-2 admitted that he had not disclosed the names of culprits to the doctor nor narrated the manner of incident.
He further interalia deposed that after about 4 to 5 minutes, of their FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 7/60 reaching to the hospital, police reached there; that he cannot tell the name or designation of those police officials who reached there; police official met him in the ward where he was receiving treatment; further, he cannot tell the exact time when his statement was recorded by the police, however, his statement was recorded immediately, after arrival of police. He agreed that his statement was recorded by police once; that he does not remember whether any document pertaining to seizure of his blood stained clothes was prepared or not; that he does not know whether his father was also present in the hospital in his ward, when his statement was recorded. Witness denied that his father was also with him when his statement was recorded by the police; he further denied the suggestion that at the instance of his father, he had given a false statement to the police.
The witness was read over his entire statement Ex.PW2/A. The witness agreed that in his entire statement, there is no mention that Sunder had given a gupti blow on the back of his brother Ram and when accused Sunder tried to take out gupti from the back of his brother Ram, handle came out in the hand of accused Sunder and sharp edged portion remained stuck on the back of his brother Ram. Witness denied that he was deliberately and intentionally made improvement in his statement before this Court that Sunder had given a gupti blow on the back of his brother. Witness denied the suggestion that Monu had not caught hold of him from behind and accused Sonu and Sunder had assaulted him with knife or sharp edged object with the intention to kill him or that accused Monu, Sunder and Sonu were not present at the spot or that they had not caused any injury to him or his brother or that he had falsely named the accused persons in his complaint due to the enmity with Monu and his family members. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
Witness further denied the suggestion that a quarrel had taken place on 30.11.2016 when he was in a compromising position with the wife of accused Monu or that DD No. 6-B was registered in PS Seemapuri through mobile no. 95xxxxxx46 and the same was marked to ASI Manoj for further action. Witness FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 8/60 further denied that in the police station, a settlement was arrived between his father and accused persons and his father tendered an apology before the accused persons and 'P. PW2/Witness Suraj further denied the suggestion that accused Sonu, Monu and Sunder were not present at the spot and never participated in the alleged incident. He further denied that there as pitch dark at the place of incident or that some unknown persons had caused injuries to him or to his brother or that he has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case due to previous enmity.
iii. PW-3 Ct. Yogender Kumar:- He deposed that on 21.02.2017, he joined the investigation with SI Vishvender and they went to GTB Hospital where SI Vishvender had recorded statement of Ram; further, SI Vishvender had contacted Dr. Rahul Anshuman in GTB Hospital; that the doctor had handed over a box in sealed condition and that plastic container/box was containing a weapon like knife, the said container was converted into a sealed pullanda by seizure memo Ex.PW3/A which bears his signature at point A. iv. PW-4 Dr. Naveen Kumar- He deposed that on 20.02.2017, at about 10.15 pm, he medically examined injured Ram (son of Sh. Pyare Lal), who was brought to the hospital with alleged history of stab wound sustained in an incident that took place at Aradhak Nagar, near Dilshad Garden Metro Station at about 10 pm; that the alleged history was told to him by the patient himself and the person namely Pankaj, who brought him to the hospital.
Dr. further deposed that on examination, he found injured was conscious/oriented; he found injury on the right side lumbar region, 4 cm lateral to midline around L2 vertibra and after giving primary treatment, the patient (injured Ram) was referred to Surgery; the detailed MLC of the injured bearing No.A-1857/05/2017 Ex. PW4/A was prepared by him.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 9/60The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and during the cross-examination, PW4/Dr. deposed interalia that the alleged history told to him was recorded by him as per the facts disclosed to him and the facts were not distorted by him in any manner. The alleged history was told to him voluntarily by the victim; that he does not remember the time when he handed over the parcel containing T-shirt of injured to Duty Constable. PW4/Dr. Naveen denied the suggestion that patient was not having injuries or he had mentioned the injures at the instance of police, in the MLC.
v. PW-5 First IO/ASI Ram Singh - He deposed that on the intervening night of 20/21.02.2017 at about 10 pm, he received one DD No. 100-B which was assigned to him, it was in respect of an incident of stabbing of two boys near Seema Puri Border; thereafter, he along with HC Karamvir reached at Apsara Border, Aradhak Nagar, Seema Puri; there they came to know that injured had been taken to GTB Hosital by his family members. Thereafter, he along with HC Karamvir reached at GTB hospital and on reaching there, he collected MLC of injured Suraj and Ram; both of them were declared fit for statement; that he recorded statement of Suraj i.e. Ex.PW2/A which was attested by him and it bears his signature at point B. The Duty Constable Karamvir handed over to him three sealed parcels with two sample seals containing clothes of injured persons; those parcels were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. On the said statement of injured Suraj; he prepared rukka Ex.PW5/B and it was handed over to HC Karamvir for registration of the FIR, with the request that investigation be assigned to another officer. After registration of the FIR, further investigation was assigned to SI Vishvehnder and he deposited the aforesaid parcels with malkhana.
The witness was duly cross-examined by the Defence counsel and in his cross-examination, he interalia deposed that he does not remember who were the relatives of the injured persons who met him at the place of incident; that he FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 10/60 had not recorded their statements and also not written their names and addresses; that he did not make inquiry from those relatives as to whether they were eye- witnesses of the incident or not; that they also did not disclose to him in this regard. PW-5 further admitted that the incident took place on the side of the road, which leads towards Jhuggi cluster. The said place of incident was at a distance of about 10 to 12 meters from the main road; that there was no darkness; that there was no street light. The witness further voluntarily deposed that there was sufficient light coming from the side of Dilshad Garden Metro Station. The said Dilshad Garden Metro Station was at a distance of 100 yards from the spot. Witness denied that at the place of occurrence, there was pitch dark.
vi. PW-6 HC Karamvir- He deposed that on 20.02.2017, one DD No. 100 B was assigned to ASI Ram Singh; that he joined ASI Ram Singh to attend the said DD; then, he along with ASI Ram Singh reached at Apsara Border, Aradhak Nagar, Seema Puri; on reaching there, they came to know that injured persons were removed to GTB Hospital; then, he along with ASI Ram Singh reached at GTB Hospital, there ASI Ram Singh collected MLC of injured Suraj and Ram; that one Duty Constable was also present at GTB Hopsital but he does not remember the name of that Duty Constable. The said Duty Constable handed over three sealed parcels to ASI Ram Singh and he seized those parcels vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point B. Both the injured persons had not given their statements as they were under treatment. Therefore, he along with ASI Ram Singh returned to police station.
On 21.02.2017, he again joined the investigation with ASI Ram Singh and they reached at GTB Hospital; there ASI Ram Singh (PW-5) recorded statement of injured persons Suraj and Ram; that one rukka was prepared there for registration of FIR, which was handed over to him; he took the rukka and handed over the same to Duty officer at PS Seema Puri for registration of FIR; then, he handed copy of the FIR and original tehrir to ASI Ram Singh at GTB Hospital.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 11/60His statement was recorded by SI Vishvendra at GTB Hospital.
The witness was cross-examined by the Defence counsel and in his cross-examination, witness PW-6 deposed that the distance between the police station and the spot is 2 km; that he cannot tell the specific place, where the incident had happened; that in his presence, ASI Ram Singh had not lifted anything from the spot; place of occurrence was situated at the distance of ½ km from the road; that no eye-witness met them at the spot on their first visit except the family members of the injured persons; that no statement of any public person was recorded at the spot in his presence on their first visit; that no public person met them in the hospital; that ASI Ram Singh had not recorded any statement of family members of injured persons, who met them at the spot. He admitted that the family members of the injured persons had not casted any suspicion upon any persons nor they leveled any allegation against the accused persons however, they had only informed that the injured persons have been removed to the GTB Hospital; that they hardly remained at the spot for about 5 to 7 minutes of their first visit. He denied that no incident had happened inside the Aradhak Nagar from ½ from the main road or that he was deposing falsely in this aspect.
vii. PW-7 Second IO/ SI Vishvendra- He deposed that on 21.02.2017, after registration of FIR No.94/2017 (present case FIR), the investigation of this case was assigned to him; he along with Ct. Yogender reached at GTB Hospital; on reaching there, he found injured persons Ram and Suraj under treatment in the hospital. He made inquiries from both of them about the incident and recorded the statement of injured Ram. Witness/IO further deposed that the doctor present in the hospital handed over to him one iron strip like blade of knife, which was already kept in transparent plastic container and sealed with the seal of GTB Hospital; that it was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, he along with Ct., Yogender left the hospital in search of accused persons namely Sonu, Monu and Sunder, who were named in the complaint itself;
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 12/60that all the accused persons were interrogated by him; that on inquiry, accused Sunder claimed himself to be a minor and he being Juvenile Welfare Officer of PS Seema Puri made inquiries from him and documents in this regard were prepared; that accused Sunder was left at Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. (Court Observation: It is pertinent to note herein that accused Sunder was declared not to be a Juvenile vide order dated 28.07.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board-III, Delhi) PW-7 further interalia deposed that other two accused persons namely Sonu and Monu were taken to PS Seema Puri; that they were again thoroughly interrogated at police station and arrested in this case; that accused Sonu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B and accused Monu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D; that personal search of the accused persons was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/E respectively; that the facts disclosed by accused Sonu and Monu were recorded as their disclosure statement, which was Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G respectively; that both of them were got medically examined and thereafter, were sent to lock-up.
He further deposed that on the next day, accused Sunder was produced before JJB and other two accused persons namely Sonu and Monu were produced in Court and both of them were sent to JC; during investigation, ossification test of accused Sunder was got conducted from GTB Hospital; further, he (IO) deposited MLC at GTB Hospital for obtaining opinion regarding nature of injuries, which were kept pending by the time he prepared charge sheet against the accused persons; that on completion of investigation, he prepared charge sheet and filed the same before the court through SHO; that all the three accused persons were arrested by him (witness correctly identified all the accused). One plastic container duly sealed with the seal of MLC, GTB Hospital, bearing the particulars of the case and name and signature of Dr. Rahul Anshuman and seal of Senior Resident depicted on it containing iron strip like blade of knife and which was clearly visible, was produced during the testimony FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 13/60 of PW-7, it was shown to him and he identified the object as the same which was handed over to him by the doctor at GTB Hospital in that container.
This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross-examination, he admitted that injured were got admitted in hospital by one Pankaj, he had not recorded the statement of said Pankaj. He deposed that injured persons told him that said Pankaj was known to them but they were not aware about his address; he prepared the site plan of place of incident at the instance of injured Suraj; he does not know on which date and time it was prepared, but it was not prepared on the day when the investigation was assigned to him; that he cannot tell after how many days, he prepared the site plan; that he had not shown the position of the injured and accused persons in the site plan.
Witness admitted that no public witness was joined at the time of arrest/disclosure statement recorded of accused, witness then stated voluntarily that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant by mentioning the name of accused persons.
PW- further interalia deposed that he does not know whether the wife of accused Monu made any PCR call against injured Suraj or whether Suraj was apprehended at the house of accused Monu on 30.11.2016 by accused and his mother with the wife ('P') of accused. He deposed that he was not aware that Suraj felt apology before the police for the aforesaid act.
This witness has denied the suggestion that accused persons did not make any disclosure statement; witness further denied that due to grudge of Suraj, accused Monu and his brothers were falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant (Suraj).
viii. PW-8 Dr. Abdulla, Jr. Resident, GTB Hospital - He deposed that on 20.02.2017, he medically examined injured Suraj at about 10:30 pm, vide MLC No. A-1858/5/17, who was brought to the hospital by Pankaj, with alleged history FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 14/60 of stab injury near Dilshad Garden around 10 pm, which was stated by the injured and the person, who brought him to the hospital. On medical examination of the injured, Dr. found following injuries on the person of injured:-
1) Incised wound around 3X2 cm and 1X1 cm on posterior aspect of left upper arm.
2) Incised wound 1X1 cm over left lateral aspect of upper arm.
3) Incised wound 2X1 cm, 1 X 1 cm and 1 X 1 cm over left flank region.
4) Incised wound 1 X 1 cm left upper quadrant of hip.
After examination, he provided primary treatment to the injured referred to the injured for Surgery, Ortho and Forensic Departments. PW-8/Dr. Deposed that the injuries were caused by sharp object. The detailed MLC prepared by Dr. is Ex.PW8/A, which bears his signature at point A. PW-8/Dr. further deposed that the lower, underwear, shirt, t-shirt and banyan of the injured were sealed in a parcel with the seal of hospital and the parcel was collected by the police.
The witness has been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein he admitted that whatever alleged history was told by the injured and the person, who brought the injured to the hospital was recorded in the MC; that the name of the assailant and their description is not mentioned in the alleged history.
ix PW-9 Dr. Sushil Kamal, Senior Resident, GTB Hospital - He deposed that he was well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Anuj Gupta as he had worked with him; that he had seen MLC of injured Ram, son of Pyare Lal MLC No. A-1857/05/17 dated 20.02.2017; that in the said MLC, Dr. Anuj Gupta had given his opinion regarding nature of injuries as simple, on dated 23.05.2017, on the basis of x-ray no. 1181 dated 20.02.2017; that the said opinion is in the handwriting of Dr. Anuj Gupta, same is Ex.PW9/A which bears his signature and seal at point A. x. PW-10 HC Rohtash- He deposed that on 21.02.2017, he was FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 15/60 working as MHC(M) at Malkhana of PS Seema Puri, on that day, ASI Ram Singh had deposited the sealed pullanda with the seal of GTB Hospital Delhi; that he deposited the said pullanda in malkhana vide seizure no. 208 of Register no.19 and photocopy of the entry of MHC(M) in register no. 19 is Ex.PW10/A. Further, on the same date, SI Vishwender deposited one Jar and one sample seal of the GTB Hospital.
The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and during his cross-examination, PW-10 deposed that IO had recorded his statement in the present case and agreed that register no. 19 do not mention the time of deposit of exhibits nor it bears his signature. He further deposed that exhibits were deposited in malkhana after 05:00 pm. III. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS:-
4. Statement of all the accused persons U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 17.02.2023, wherein accused Sonu S/o Masicharan in his Statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, besides denying the allegations so levelled by the Prosecution upon him, stated that he never made any disclosure statement and was falsely arrested by the police. He further stated that he was not present at the spot at the alleged time of incident and that on 17.02.2017, he along with his brother Sunder, his wife and parents had gone to Hathras, UP to perform the marriage of his cousin sister namely Pooja. He further stated that he returned back to Delhi on 20.02.2017 by train at 10:00 pm and that he has no concern with the present case in hand.
Accused Monu S/o Sh. Masi Charan in his Statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, besides denying the allegations so levelled by the Prosecution upon him stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident and that on 20.02.2017, he was working in Satmola Factory as Housekeeper from 09:00 am to 01:00 am (intervening night of 20-21.02.2017) and that he has no concern with the alleged incident.
Accused Sunder S/o Masi Charan in his Statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 16/60 besides denying the allegations so levelled by the Prosecution upon him stated that he never made any disclosure statement and was falsely arrested by the police. He further stated that he was not present at the spot at the alleged time of incident and that on 17.02.2017, he along with his brother Sonu and his wife and parents had gone to Hathras, UP to perform the marriage of his cousin sister namely Pooja which was scheduled for 19.02.2017 and the Vidai Ceremony was performed on 20.02.2017 at about 08:00 am there. He further stated that he returned back to Delhi on 20.02.2017 by train at 10:00 pm and that he has no concern with the present case in hand.
IV. EVIDENCE IN DEFENCE:
5. Perusal of the record reveals that all the accused persons stated that they wish to lead evidence in defense and they further examined witnesses in order to prove their defense.
6. Accused persons have examined following witnesses in their defense:
i. DW-1 Pooja:- She deposed that she got married with Shekhar on 19.02.2017 in her native village; that accused persons Sunder and Sonu alongwith their parents and wife of Sonu came to thier house to attend her marriage in the morning of 19.02.2017; that Sonu and Sunder, both accused persons were her cousin brothers; both of them attended her marriage and photographs of accused persons were also clicked at the time of her marriage with the accused persons.
She further deposed that they had helped in arranging her marriage functions; that her vidai took place on the next day i.e. 20.02.2017 at around 02:00 pm; they were present at the time of her vidai ceremony and also performed the rasam (ritual) of Vidai; that they had left the village after her vidai and it was a journey of six hours from our village to reach Delhi via bus or train. The photocopy of FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 17/60 her marriage card was marked as Mark-DW1/A. DW-1 further deposed that on 22.02.2017, she had told the police that accused persons were attending her marriage on 19.02.2017 and they were not involved in the incident of present case.
The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the Prosecution by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and in her cross-examination, she deposed that the card Mark-DW1/A was got published by her father; that her marriage was attended by approximately 200 persons. Witness admitted that there was no photograph to show that Monu had attended her marriage. The witness voluntarily stated that he (Monu) had not attended her marriage as he was working in Satmola Factory at Sahibabad, Site - IV, Ghaziabad. She agreed that in the photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D7, her face was not visible in the said photographs being under veil.
The witness denied the suggestion that accused Sonu and Sunder did not attend her marriage. However, she admitted that she did not make any written complaint to higher Senior Police Officers that accused was wrongly arrested in the present case. She denied that her village is at a distance of about 02 -02 ½ hours via bus or train; she admitted that the photographs already Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D7 were not photographs of vidai ceremony.
She denied the suggestion that accused persons did not attend vidai ceremony or that her vidai ceremony had taken place in early morning around 06:00 am; that she was deposing falsely to save the accused persons being her cousin brothers. The witness has further deposed that she does not know whether accused Sonu and Sunder had caused injury to Ram and Suraj as she was at her matrimonial house.
ii. DW-2 Shri Ganesh Kumar, Chief, Booking Superintendent, Railway Station, Aligarh, UP- He deposed that he had brought original roll supply register w.e.f 11.01.2017 till 14.06.2017 pertain to the ticket bookings (unreserved) ; that as per record, ticket roll having the 500 tickets bearing no.UCA66235001 -
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 18/6066235500 was issued on 20.02.2017 from window no.14 and dealt by Shri Manish, Booking Clerk at Railway Station, Aligarh, UP. Similarly, ticket roll having the 500 tickets bearing no.UCA 66235501 - 66236000 was issued on 20.02.2017 from window no.15 and dealt by Shri Hemant Kumar, Booking Clerk at Railway Station, Aligarh, UP. Attested copy of the same is Ex.DW2/A. He further deposed that five tickets Mark A1/PW1 to A2 were issued from Railway Counter, Aligarh Railway Junction to Vivek Vihar and ticket Mark A3, A4 and A5 were issued from Railway counter of Aligarh Railway Junction to Sahibabad. The tickets mark A1 and A2 were issued at 3.45 PM on 20.02.2017 and tickets mark A3 was issued at about 4.11 PM and A4 and A5 were issued at about 4.12 PM on 20.02.2017.
DW-2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during his cross-examination, he (DW-2) admitted that he could not say as to who got issued the said tickets; that he also can not tell as to who had traveled from Aligarh to Vivek Vihar and Aligarh to Sahibabad Railway Station; that these tickets are general (unreserved); these tickets were issued to travel in EMU train (Ordinary train). He further deposed that he cannot tell the schedule of the said train; that these tickets cannot be used in Express and Superfast trains.
iii. DW-3 Shri Shekhar Kumar- He deposed that he got married with Pooja on 19.02.2017 in his native village i.e., Bijanpur, District Hathras, UP; that the accused persons Sunder and Sonu alongwith their parents and wife of Sonu had come to their house to attend his marriage in the morning of 19.02.2017; that Sonu and Sunder (accused persons) were his brother-in-laws; that both of them attended his marriage and photographs of accused persons were also clicked at the time of his marriage with the accused persons. DW-3 further deposed that they had helped in arranging his marriage functions; his vidai took place on the next day i.e. 20.02.2017 at around 02:00 pm; that they were present at the time of his vidai ceremony and also performed the Rasam (ritual) of Vidai; that they had FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 19/60 left the village after his vidai.
He further deposed that it was a journey of six hours from their village to reach Delhi via bus or train; that the photocopy of his marriage card was Mark-DW1/A; that on 22.02.2017, he had told the police that accused persons were attending his marriage on 19.02.2017 and on 20.02.2017, at around 3-4.00 PM, they had purchased ticket from Railway Station, Aligarh to travel in train to Delhi.
The witness DW-3 admitted that accused Sunder is shown in photograph Ex.Mark DW3/A1 and DW3/A2 at point A in a Tilak ceremony and Vidai ceremony.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during his cross-examination, he deposed that the card Mark-DW1/A was got published by his father; that his marriage was attended by approximately 200 persons. He denied the suggestion that accused Sonu and Sunder did not attend his marriage. He admitted that he did not make any written complaint to the Police or to the Higher Senior Police Officers and the court that accused Sunder was not involved in the present case; that he did not meet personally to any Police official or Senior Police officials to apprise them that accused Sunder was not involved in the present matter. He denied that his village is at a distance of about 02 -02 ½ hours via bus or train and agreed that there is nothing to show on the photographs about the place that the said ceremony was taken place at Hathras, Aligarh and voluntarily stated that the said ceremony was taken place at the house of Pooja, my wife.
The witness agreed that that Pooja is not visible in the photograph. The witness denied the suggestion that accused Sunder and Sonu had not attended the wedding ceremony at Hathras, Aligarh or that both accused persons are involved in the present case. He further denied that he was deposing falsely to save the accused persons being the relative of the accused person or that he was suppressing the truth to save the accused persons from the present case. He FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 20/60 further deposed that he do not know whether accused Sonu and Sunder had caused injury to Ram and Suraj and accused that he was not present with the accused persons at the Aligarh Railway Station when they had purchased the railway tickets. Witness denied that the accused had not purchased any ticket from the Aligarh Railway station to travel to Delhi from Aligarh Railway Station.
iv. DW-4 Sh. Akshay- He deposed that he was working in Honda company as house-keeper; that the accused Monu has worked as house-keeper with him in Satmola Company at Maharajpur, UP for a period of around 2-3 years; that on 20.02.2017, the accused Monu was on duty with him in Satmola Co. Maharajpur, UP for the whole day i.e. from 09.00 am in the morning till 11.00 pm; that they reached at their home at around 12.00 in the night i.e. intervening night of 20/21.02.2017. He further deposed that the accused Monu has been falsely implicated in the present matter and since he was present on duty with him, he was not present a the spot at the time and date of incident.
The witness (DW-4) was also cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State who deposed that he does not have any documentary proof like appointment letter, ID card, duty slip, salary slip to show that he and accused Monu were working in Satmola co. and that accused Monu was with him on the aforesaid date and time in the said company. He deposed that he was having the bank account statement wherein salary of Rs.6,281/- for the month of January 2017 and Rs.6,384/- for the month of February 2017 has been credited in his account from Satmola Co.
The witness admitted that the name of the Satmola Co. was not reflected anywhere in the photocopy of his bank statement marked as Mark DW4/A and voluntarily stated that the said account was opened by the Satmola Company.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 21/60v. DW-5 Smt. Guddi, Mother of the accused persons- She deposed interalia that she was working as House help(Maid); that on 19.02.2017, marriage of her daughter namely Pooja was solemnized at Village Bijalpur, Hathras, UP; that on 18.02.2017, she along with her husband, accused/her son Sonu (one of the accused), his wife, his children and her other son Sunder (one of the accused) left Delhi at about 6.00 PM and reached Hathras at about 5.00 AM on next day; that after the marriage, the Vidai ceremony took place at about 2.00 PM and thereafter, they left Hathras on 20.02.2017, at about 2.30 PM and reached Aligarh Railway Station at about 4.30 PM and from there they took train to Delhi and reached Delhi at about 10.00 PM; that they reached our house at about 11.00 PM.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and in her cross-examination, she admitted that i.e. Hathras is not shown in the photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to D7; that she does not have any documentary proof to show that marriage ceremony of her daughter was performed at Hathras. Witness voluntarily stated that the marriage card of her daughter is already on record and same has already been exhibited.
She has further admitted that she does not have any ticket or documentary proof to show that she along with accused Sonu and Sunder had visited Hathras on the above said date; the witness further admitted that her name and names of accused Sonu and Sunder were not reflected in the said record (Ex.DW2/A i.e. copy of record of ticket booking register).
7. After examination of Defence witnesses, DE stood closed and final arguments were heard from both the sides.
V. FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
8. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that both the injured i.e. Suraj and Ram have described the incident in vivid details and have further FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 22/60 correctly identified all the accused persons as perpetrators of crime. It is further argued that the injuries upon the person of both Suraj and Ram are duly proved by the Prosecution by placing on record their MLCs as well as by testimony of the doctors concerned. It is further argued that from the bare perusal of the testimony of the witnesses and the nature of injury so inflicted upon the injured, it is evident that the accused persons were having an intention to kill the victim Suraj and they further stabbed the other victim Ram with a knife with complete knowledge that such injury might result into his death. It is further argued that the defense so raised by the accused, by no stretch of imagination goes to show that the accused persons could not have been present at the spot at the alleged point of time. It is further averred that even if, for the sake of arguments the story so weaved by the accused in their defense is believed to be true and correct, there is nothing placed on record by the accused to show as to at what time they boarded the train from Hathras on the alleged date of incident and when they reached to Delhi. Further, the tickets relied upon by the accused persons are General Tickets and name of the accused or any other person is not mentioned on any ticket. So, these could be the tickets used by any persons other than the accused.
It is further argued that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons and that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences they are charged for.
9. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there are several material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and as such, they cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that the accused persons are falsely implicated by the complainant since there was previous animosity between the parties. It is further averred that the accused persons could not have been present at the spot at the alleged date and time and the said defence is duly proved by the accused persons by examining its FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 23/60 witnesses. It is further argued that probable defence has been successfully raised and proved by the accused persons and thereby, they cannot be convicted and are entitled to be acquitted.
10. This Court has heard the arguments so led by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the case file carefully.
VI. LAW OF SEC. 307 IPC:-
11. Before proceeding further with the present case in hand on merits, this court deems it appropriate to discuss herein law with regard to offence u/s 307 IPC. For the same, Section 307 IPC is reproduced herein, for ready reference:
Section 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.
Sec. 300 IPC define offence of Murder as:
300. Murder.-- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
(Secondly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
(Thirdly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
(Fourthly)-- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 24/60 probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
12. Further, in judgment titled as Rakesh vs The State Of Delhi decided on 30 August, 2018, Hon'ble Delhi High Court reiterated the legal position u/s 307 IPC as:
36. In Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh AIR 1988 SC 2127, the Supreme Court opined:
"Under Section 307 IPC, what the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of „attempt to murder ‟. Under Section 307, the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, and the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention."
37. In Bappa alias Bapu v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 6 SCC 485, the victim had accompanied the accused to go watch a movie. While returning on a bicycle, the accused suddenly got down from the bicycle and stabbed the victim on his stomach and back and pressed his neck. While negativing the contention that keeping in view the nature of the injuries sustained, the offence cannot be said to be one covered by Section 307 IPC, the Supreme Court held as under:
"It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often given considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 25/60 knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."
As such, for an offence to come within the purview of Sec. 307 IPC, it is for the Prosecution to prove that act so committed by the accused persons was done with the intention or knowledge as specified u/s 300 IPC.
VII. POINT OF DETERMINATION
13. In view of the facts discuss above, it for this court to determine:
Whether the Prosecution proves that the accused persons namely Sonu, Monu and Sunder in furtherance of their common intention did any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death of the injured namely Suraj or Ram, they would be guilty of their murder, (Attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 IPC) ?
VIII. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-
14. Now adverting to the case in hand, it is the case of the Prosecution that on 20.02.2017 at 09.30 pm at Apsara Border, Aradhak Nagar, Delhi, all the accused persons namely Monu, Sonu and Sunder in furtherance of their common intention did an act i.e. they launched attack on Complainant Suraj whereby, accused Monu caught hold of the complainant/victim Suraj and accused Sonu and Sunder stabbed him with a knife/sharp edged instrument (Gupti) and further when Suraj's brother namely Ram tried to save him, the accused persons also stabbed him with the knife/Gupti on his back leaving sharp edge of weapon embedded in Ram's body.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 26/6015. In order to prove their case, Prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of injured/complainant Suraj and his brother/injured Ram.
PW-1 Sh. Ram has deposed that accused persons were having enmity with his younger brother; that they were residing as a tenant in the house of relative of accused persons; that on 20.02.2017, at about 09:30 pm, when he alongwith his brother were coming from Gym and when they reached near Chauraha, Aradhak Nagar, accused persons met them and accused persons threatened them by saying that "aaj ise sabak sikha denge"; then the accused Monu caught hold of his brother Suraj from back side and Sonu and Sunder had assaulted his brother Suraj with knife with the intention to kill him; when he tried to save his brother, accused persons also gave knife and sharp edged weapon blow on his back side; that after causing injury, accused persons ran away from the spot. He further deposed that the said sharp edged knife remained stuck on his back and when accused tried to take out the said weapon back, handle of the knife came out in the hand of accused and sharp edged portion remained stuck on his back.
The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and during his cross-examination, he (PW-1 Ram) denied the suggestion that Suraj and he might have been assaulted by someone else or that due to darkness, he could not see the face of assailants. He further denied the suggestion that no threat was extended to teach him a lesson. He further denied that accused Monu had not withhold his brother Suraj or that Sonu and Sunder had not assaulted him or his brother Suraj.
16. The complainant/victim Suraj (main injured) who has been examined as PW2, has deposed that on 20.02.2017, at about 09:00/09:30 pm, he alongwith his brother Ram were coming from the gym and when they reached near Chauraha, Aradhak Nagar, they were on bicycle and accused Sonu met them and he stopped their bicycle and threatened them "aaj tujhe sabak sikha denge"; that accused FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 27/60 Sonu caught hold of him from behind and his (Sonu's) two brothers Monu and Sunder started assaulting him with knife and sharp edged weapon ( gupti); when he raised alarm, his brother Ram came there, accused Sunder had given a gupti blow on the back of Ram and when accused Sunder tried to take out gupti from the back of Ram, handle came out in the hand of Sunder and sharp edged portion of knife/gupti remained stuck on the back of his brother Ram.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during his cross-examination, he deposed that he had given his statement to police and same was recorded by the police on his dictation. Witness admitted that accused Monu had caught hold of him from behind and accused Sonu and Sunder had assaulted him with knife and sharp edged object with the intention to kill, however, due to some confusion, he had deposed in his chief that he was caught hold by Sonu.
17. It is pellucid from the testimonies of both these prime witnesses that they have described the incident in question in its vivid details, further they have described the role of each accused persons and both the said witnesses have deposed that on 20.02.2017, at about 09.30 pm, while they were coming back from Gym and reached near chauraha, Aradhak Nagar, accused persons met them and further threatened "aaj issey sabak sikha denge". Both the witnesses have further deposed that while one of the accused caught hold of Suraj from behind, other two accused assaulted him with a sharp edged weapon and further when Ram (brother of Suraj) tried to intervene, accused persons also stabbed him on his back with a sharp edged weapon due to which even the sharp edged portion of that weapon got stuck on his back and it remained stuck there. As per the testimony of IO/SI Vishvendra (PW-7), one iron strip like blade of knife, which was already kept in transparent plastic container and sealed with the seal of GTB Hospital was handed over to him by the doctor present in the hospital.
Both the injured witnesses correctly identified all the accused FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 28/60 persons during their deposition in the court.
IX. MEDICAL REPORT/MLCs OF INJURED PERSONS:-
18. Apart from testimony of both victims/injured, Prosecution in order to prove the injuries upon the person of both injured namely Suraj and Ram has placed on record their MLC Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW-4/A respectively.
Now adverting to the Medical Evidence, as per the MLC of injured Ram, he had sustained:-
Injury on the right side lumbar region 4 cm lateral to mid-line around L2 lumber vertibra.
Further, as per the MLC of injured Suraj, he sustained:-
a) Incised wound around 3 cm X 2 cm and 1 cm X 1 cm over posterior aspect of left upper arm;
b) Incised wound 1 X 1 cm over left lateral aspect of upper arm;
c) Incised wound 2 X 1 cm, 1 X 1 cm and 1 X 1 cm over left flank region and Incised wound 1 X 1 cm left upper quadrant of hip.
Both the MLCs were duly proved by the Prosecution by examining Dr. Naveen Kumar (PW-4) and Dr. Abdulla (PW8).
19. The Prosecution has further produced the one pink colour T-shirt having some brown stains and one cut present on the lower back side of T-shirt and a jar sealed with the seal of hospital containing one sharp edged weapon without handle. The said T-shirt was identified by the victim Ram as the one which he wore on the day of incident and he also identified that sharp edged portion of weapon as the same which was used during the commission of offence i.e. weapon/knife which was being used by the accused persons to stab the victims FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 29/60 and its sharp edged portion remain embedded on the back of victim Ram. The said knife without handle (sharp edged portion) was also correctly by the witnesses during the course of their testimony.
X. DEFENCE RAISED BY ACCUSED:-
20. Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons has raised following defenses:
a) That the accused persons were not present at the spot at the alleged point of time.
b) That the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant due to previous enmity.
c) That there are contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 and PW2.
d) That although the incident took place at a public place, no public person was examined by the Prosecution.
e) That the complainant did not inform the name of assailants at 100 number call or to the doctor during course of preparation of MLC, despite knowing accused persons;
f) That there was delay in lodging of FIR. XI. DEFENCE OF PLEA DEFENCE OF ALIBI:-
21. It is pertinent to state in here that, accused persons nowhere during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses/injured/complainant have denied the occurrence of alleged incident. The defence so raised by the accused persons is that they were not present at the spot at the alleged point of time and that the said incident could have been caused by some other person and the accused were falsely implicated in the present case.
The same can be gathered from the following suggestions so put to FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 30/60 the injured by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Cross Examination of witness Ram on 02.06.2018:
".....it is wrong to suggest that Suraj and me might have been assaulted by someone else or it was darkness and you could not see faces of those assailants...."
Cross Examination of witness Suraj on 31.08.2018:
"....it is wrong to suggest that accused Sonu, Monu and Sunder were not present at the spot and never participated in the alleged incident. It is wrong to suggest that there was pitch dark at the place of incident or that some unknown persons had caused the injures to me and my brother or that I have falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case due to previous enmity...".
22. The alleged incident and injuries upon the person of complainant/injured Suraj and injured Ram were not disputed by the accused, however, all the accused persons have raised a defence that they were not present at the spot; at this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with this defence of alibi so raised by the accused persons.
23. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to refer to Judgment titled as Ashok Verma Vs. State of Chhatisgarh Crl. Apeal No. 815/2022, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (19.12.2024):-
10. We will now consider the question whether the contention of the appellant that the plea of alibi was considered perversely, especially without properly appreciating the evidence of DW-1. In the decision in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar1, this Court took note of the meaning of the Latin word 'alibi' as 'elsewhere' and observed and held that the said plea would be available only if that 'elsewhere' is a place which is that much far off making it extremely FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 31/60 impossible or improbable for the person concerned to reach the place of occurrence and participate in the offence concerned on the relevant date and time.
Paragraph 22 and 23 of the said decision which is relevant for the purpose reads thus:-
"22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Penal Code, 1860 or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant.
Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth reproducing in this context:
"The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant."
23. The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi.
The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened.
But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 32/60 at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 166; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple [(1984) 1 SCC 446."
13. As held in Binay Kumar Singh's case (supra), strict proof is required to establish the plea of alibi. There is absolutely no evidence establishing that DW-1 was there in the garden during the said period. Then, how his version could be relied on by the appellant to establish the plea of alibi. That apart, the very fact is that the appellant took up the plea of alibi on the ground that he was in a nearby garden itself would be sufficient to throw the case put forth by him as defence, in the light of Binay Kumar Singh's case (supra).
The plea of alibi, in the light of the decision in Binay Kumar Singh's case (supra) can be applied only if the 'elsewhere place' is far away from the place of occurrence so that it was extremely improbable or impossible for the person concerned to reach the place of occurrence and to participate in the crime on the relevant date and time of occurrence. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the said contention was rightly rejected by the Courts below.
24. Now, adverting to the present case in hand, it has been stated by accused Sonu and Sunder that they were not present at the spot on the alleged date of incident, since on 17.02.2017 they had gone to Hathras, UP to attend wedding of their cousin Pooja and returned back to Delhi on 20.02.2017 by train at 10:00 pm. The accused Sunder and Sonu, in order to prove that they were at Hathras, U.P. on the alleged date of incident, have examined Pooja as DW-1 and Shekhar Kumar as DW-3. Accused persons further filed certain photographs in order to show that they attended the marriage of their sister Pooja at Hathras, UP.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 33/60Accused further placed on record five railway tickets all dated 20.02.2017 issued between 03:45 pm to 04:12 pm from Aligarh Junction to Vivek Vihar (two tickets) and Aligarh Junction to Sahibabad (three tickets). Accused persons have also examined one Sh. Ganesh Kumar, Chief Booking Superintendent, Railway Station Aligarh, UP as DW-2 in order to prove the alleged tickets.
25. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that even the complainant/injured during the course of his examination, admitted the fact that both accused Sonu and Sunder attended the marriage function of Pooja at Hathras, UP. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of cross-examination of injured Sh. Ram is being reproduced as under:
"......it is correct that on 19.02.2017, there was marriage of accused's cousin sister Pooja in Hathras, Aligarh, UP. I know and it is correct that accused Sonu and Sunder had gone in Hathras (UP) along with their mother and father had gone to attend the marriage but I am not knowing whether Sonu's wife had gone to attend the marriage...".
26. In this regard, even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the accused persons attended the marriage function of their cousin sister Pooja at Hathras, UP on 19.02.2017 and her Vidai ceremony on 20.02.2017, it cannot be said that the accused persons could not have returned back to Delhi from Hathras till 09.30 pm (alleged time of incident) on 20.02.2017.
27. Further, there is major contradiction in the testimonies of witnesses so adduced by the accused persons in their defence and in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Accused Sonu and Sunder in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C averred that they went to Hathras, UP on 17.02.2017 in order to attend and FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 34/60 perform the marriage of Pooja which was scheduled on 19.02.2017, however, Pooja(DW-1), Sh. Shekhar Kumar (DW-3) and Smt. Guddi (DW-5) during the course of their testimonies deposed that both Sonu and Sunder reached Hathras, UP to attend the marriage in the morning of 19.02.2017.
Accused Sunder has further stated in his Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Vidai Ceremony was performed on 20.02.2017 at about 08:00 am, however, as per the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-3, both the accused left the village (at Hathras, UP) after Vidai ceremony which allegedly took place on 20.02.2017 at 02:00 pm. In order to prove their story, the accused persons have relied upon five railway tickets issued between 03:45 pm to 04:12 pm stated to have been issued from Aligarh junction, UP. The issuance of said tickets was also proved by Sh. Ganesh Kumar, Chief Booking Superintendent, Railway Station Aligarh, UP.
It is noteworthy that although the railway tickets were issued from Aligarh junction between 03:45 pm to 04:12 pm on 20.02.2017, however, as per the deposition of DW-5 i.e. mother of the accused persons, they reached Aligarh Junction at 04:30 pm i.e. after the issuance of railway tickets.
It is further pertinent to state in here that the above said tickets does not mention the name of any individual or any of the accused or any of his family members, nor the same specify the departure time of the train from Aligarh junction or arrival time at Delhi. As such, from the bare perusal of the said tickets, it cannot be said as to in whose favour the same were issued or at what time, accused persons boarded the train or at what time, they arrived at Delhi.
Even DW-2 during the course of cross-examination failed to clarify the same. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of DW-2 is being reproduced as under:
"....It is correct that I cannot say as to who got issued the said tickets. I also cannot tell as to who had travelled from Aligarh to Vivek Vihar and Aligarh to FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 35/60 Sahibabad Railway Station. It is correct that these tickets are general (unreserved)..."
28. Even if, for the sake of arguments, the complete defence so set up by the accused Sonu and Sunder is believed to be correct and true that they attended the marriage ceremony of Pooja at Hathras, UP on 19.02.2017 and left their village on 20.02.2017 after Vidai ceremony and further obtained train tickets from Aligarh Junction at 04:15 pm, even then, it cannot be said that the accused persons could not have arrived back to Delhi till 09:30 pm i.e. time of incident. The tickets so placed on record by the accused persons reflects the distance between Aligarh junction to Vivek Vihar, Delhi as merely 118 Kms. Further, all the tickets clearly mentions "commence journey within three hours or departure of first train". As such, even if, the accused persons would have boarded the train from Aligarh after 04:15 pm, they could have easily travelled a distance of 118 Kms before the time of incident i.e. 09:30 pm.
29. With regard to the defence so raised by accused Monu that he was present at Satmola factory from 09:00 am to 01:00 am (intervening night of 20- 21.02.2017), it is pertinent to note that the accused never stepped into the witness box or produced any of his document or company's document to prove this defence. However, the accused Monu has examined one witness Akshay as DW-4 on his behalf. It is noteworthy that although Akshay during the course of his deposition stated that on 20.02.2017, he was on duty along with accused Monu for the whole day. He stated that their duty hours were from 09:00 am in the morning till 11:00 pm. As such, there is contradiction with regard to the timings of alleged duty. Furthermore, DW-4 Akshay has relied upon his Bank Statement's copy which only depicts that some amount has been credited but it nowhere mentioned that the same were credited from Satmola Factory and even otherwise, it is not in any way related to the accused Monu. Apart from oral evidence, no documents i.e. appointment letter, ID Card, duty slip, salary slip of FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 36/60 accused Monu or Attendance register etc, has been placed on record or produced by either accused Monu or witness Akshay to show or prove that accused Monu was working at Satmola factory at the relevant time or that accused Monu was present in the factory on the date of incident at the alleged point of time.
As such, considering the fact that no documentary evidence has been adduced by the witness or by accused Monu that he (Monu) was employed with Satmola Company on the date of incident and was present in the factory on the alleged date, has rendered the said testimony of witness Akshay completely unreliable for want of requisite corroboration in the form of documents.
XII. DEFENCE OF CONTRADICTION IN TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES:-
30. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that although PW-1 during the course of his testimony stated that it was accused Monu who caught hold of Suraj from behind and accused Sunder and Sonu assaulted him with knife, however, PW-2 Suraj during the course of his testimony stated that accused Sonu caught hold of him from behind while other two accused assaulted him with knife.
In this regard, it is pertinent to state herein that witness Suraj was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State upon the said point wherein he clarified that accused Monu had caught hold of him from behind while accused Sonu and Sunder assaulted him with knife. Further, during the course of cross- examination dated 31.08.2018, witness again clarified in this regard. The relevant portion is being reiterated as under:
"Reply to court question: (The witness attention is drawn to the statement given on 01.06.2018 as well as his cross-examination carried today to explain what is the factual position as to who had FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 37/60 caught hold of him from behind whether Sonu or Monu) It was Monu who caught hold of me from my back and other two assaulted me".
31. It is settled law that minor contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses are bound to occur and every such contradiction cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the Prosecution. For the same, this Court gainfully refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in a case titled as Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 355 decided on 29.09.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the following principles:-
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 38/60 evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 39/60 confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)]
6. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 40/60
(e) 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.
(f) 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.
32. It is trite of law that minor contradictions cannot be a ground to disbelieve the witnesses once their testimony stands corroborated in material particulars. In this view this court is fortified with a Judgment of our High Court of Delhi titled as Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of Nct) decided on 11.03.2019, wherein it is observed and reiterated as under:-
32. It is trite that contradictions in matters of detail cannot be a ground to disbelieve the witness once his testimony stands corroborated in material particulars. On the aspect of contradictions in the deposition of witnesses, following was the view of the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) and Ors. vs. Laxman Kumar and Ors. reported as AIR 1986 SC 250:-
"43. .....It is common human experience that different persons admittedly seeing an event, give varying accounts of the same. That is because the perceptiveness varies and a recount of the same incident is usually at variance to a considerable extent. Ordinarily, if several persons give the same account of an event, even with reference to minor details, the evidence is branded as parrot like and is considered to be the outcome of tutoring. Having read the evidence of these witnesses with great care, we are of the view that the same has the touch of intrinsic truth and the variations are within reasonable limits and the variations instead of providing the ground for rejection, add to the quality of being near to truth. ....." (emphasis added)
34. In Balvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No.1115/2010 decided on 19.02.2019, the Supreme Court has again emphasized that minor FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 41/60 discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses do not shake their trustworthiness. The aforesaid view is a reinforcement of the legal proposition laid down in Appabhai and Another v. State of Gujarat reported as 1988 Supp SCC 241, where it was held as under:-
"13. .... The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. ...." (emphasis added) To the same effect are the decisions in Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649 and Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC 546.
33. In the present matter in hand, none of the alleged contradiction in the testimony of injured/complainant can be stated to be of such material nature so as to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
XIII. EFFECT OF NON-EXAMINATION OF ANY OTHER WITNESS:-
34. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that despite the fact that incident happened at a public place and as per the testimony of PW-2, public persons gathered at the spot, none of the said witness was ever examined by the Prosecution.
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 42/6035. There is no gainsaying the fact that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. This time honoured principle has been reiterated time and again, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments.
In Amar Singh vs The State (NCT Of Delhi) on 12 October, 2020, Crl. Appeal No.336 of 2015, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but qual- ity that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted."
Needless to mention that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which has to be weighed while appreciating the evidence. In the present matter at hand, both the witnesses/injured have deposed regarding the incident in its striking details and have identified the accused persons as the assailants. It is highly improbable that the victims while being assaulted/attacked by the accused persons, would have asked the name, particulars, address or mobile number of the bypassers or the public persons who had gathered at the spot.
36. It was further argued on behalf of the accused persons that the case of the Prosecution is primarily based only on the sole testimony of victims/injured and it is one of the contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel that no public witness except the injured witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of the injured witnesses.
It is settled proposition of law that the testimony of the injured witnesses stands on the higher pedestal since the injuries and the fact that he or she was himself injured is an inbuilt guarantee of his/her/their [injured witness(s)] being present at the place of occurrence.
To address this issue, this Court holds that it has been reiterated in number of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the sole testimony of injured is FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 43/60 found to be reliable and trustworthy, then the same is sufficient to record finding against the accused, even if no other public/ independent person is examined.
This Court may gainfully refer to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as 'Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh ' dated 14.09.2010, Crl. Appeal No.1243 of 2007, wherein it has been observed that :
"26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".
It is further settled law that the evidence of injured witnesses cannot be disbelieved without assigning cogent reasons. Mere contradictions/ improve- ments on trivial matters cannot render an injured witnesses' deposition untrust- worthy.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as 'Manodutt & Anr. V/s State of UP', Crl. Appeal No. 77/2007 decided on 29.02.12, wherein it has been held that :
"19. Another contention raised on behalf of the accused/appellants is that only family members of the deceased were examined as witnesses and they being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the prosecution did not ex- amine any independent witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. This ar- gument is again without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar in law in examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the state- ment of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 44/60 accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was family member or interested wit- ness or person known to the affected party. There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to examine such witnesses, be- cause, as the events occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witness available to give the complete version of the inci- dent.
In this regard, we may refer to the judgments of this Court, in the case of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, [(2007) 14 SCC 150]. This Court drew a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. Both these witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with the law. This Court, in the said judgment, held as under:
From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the leg- islature (Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judi- ciary mandates that there must be particular number of wit- nesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plu- rality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record con- viction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testi- mony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived.
It will be useful to make a reference of another judgment of this Court, in the case of Satbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2009) 13 SCC 790], where this Court held as under: It is now a well-settled principle of law that only because the witnesses are not independent ones may not by itself be a ground to discard the prosecution case. If the prosecution case has been supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason has been shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of convic- tion can certainly be based thereupon.
Again in a very recent judgment in the case of Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673], this Court stated that when the eye-witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 45/60 it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically.
We may merely refer to the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 259], where this Court held as under:
The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occur- rence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the inci- dent, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is un- likely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an in- jured witness. [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appab- hai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maha- rashtra].
While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jar- nail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an in- jured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) & Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testi- mony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full de- tails of the incident as he was present at the time when the as- sailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major con- tradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sus- tained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examina-FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 46/60
tion and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana).
37. In light of judgments discussed above, the law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and be-
cause the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the depo- sition of the injured witness should be relied upon, unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and dis- crepancies therein.
XIV. PLEA OF PREVIOUS ANIMOSITY BETWEEN PARTIES:-
38. It was further contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant, since there was previous enmity between the parties.
39. In light of the discussion made above that both the injured in their testimony have consistently stated that it was the accused persons who launched attack upon them, stabbed them and caused injuries upon them, further the injuries upon the victims/injured persons are duly proved by their respective MLCs and Doctor's deposition in this regard, the ground as to previous enmity between the parties further goes on to strengthen the case of the prosecution, since in the given facts and circumstances, it seems that the previous enmity between the parties has provided Motive to the accused persons to commit the offences rather than their false implication in the present case.FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 47/60
XV. NON-DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF ACCUSED DURING CALL AT 100 NUMBER AND MLC:-
40. It was further averred that although both the injured knew all the accused, they being relatives, yet their names were not disclosed during the call at 100 number or were informed the doctor concerned. It is further argued that said conduct of the complainant goes to show that accused have been falsely implicated in the present case.
In this regard, it is hereby, observed that the said argument so led by Ld. Counsel for the accused holds no merits. Complainant or his relatives who were subjected to serious injuries by stabbing and were under medical treatment, cannot be expected to debrief each and every detail regarding incident on each and every occasion. Complainant and injured, informed the name of all the accused at the very first instance when their statement was recorded by the Investigating agency. Further, both the injured on every occasion stated that it were the accused who committed the offence and further they correctly identified the accused persons as assailants. Merely because, names of the accused were not informed or mentioned during the call at 100 number or to the doctor does not, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have affected the case of Prosecution.
XVI. DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR?:-
41. It was also argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that although incident is stated to have taken place on 20.02.2017 at about 09.30 PM, however, FIR was lodged on 21.02.2017 at 3:00 AM and this delay in lodging of FIR is unexplained.
42. Again adverting to the facts of present case in hand, the accused persons met the complainant Suraj and his brother Ram at 09:30 PM after which incident ensued. Thereafter, one of the injured went back home, informed about the incident to their father and then, both injured Suraj and Ram were rushed to FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 48/60 hospital. Thereafter, police arrived at hospital and recorded statement of both the injured/victims. Only after the statement was recorded, the present FIR was lodged. Considering the complete series of events/circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging of FIR. Rather, registration of FIR within 5-6 hours of the incident in question lends credence to the case of Prosecution.
43. In the instant case at hand, it is manifest from the testimony of the complainant/ injured Suraj and another injured/his brother that their testimonies are natural and consistent and corroborates each other in all material particulars.
PWs/ victims have withstood the test of cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel in as much as nothing substantive came on record, which could have demolished the substratum of their testimony i.e. their deposition that accused Monu caught hold of the complainant Suraj(PW-2) while his brothers/his co- associates (accused persons) stabbed him with a knife or sharp edged weapon (Gupti) and when his brother Ram(PW-1) tried to intervene, accused persons also stabbed him in his back with that sharp edged weapon due to which the sharp edged portion of that weapon remained stuck in Ram's back.
44. In the light of law and facts discussed above, since the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons launched an assault on the person of injured Suraj and Ram, the question which remains to be determined is whether all the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention and whether their act falls within the purview of Sec. 307 IPC.
XVII OFFENCE OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER U/s 307 IPC
45. Now, the question to be determined is whether accused had an intention or knowledge as required, for attracting offence u/s 307 IPC (any of the clauses of Section 300 IPC).
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 49/60Section 307 IPC is reproduced herein, for ready reference:
Section 307 IPC- 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.
46. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to quote the judgment of our own High Court titled as 'Vikash Bhardwaj @ Sonu & Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi' dated 20 February, 2014, CRL.A. 104-105/2006, wherein it has been observed that :
"21. The essential ingredients required for a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC are :
"(i) That the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) That such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused;
(iii) That such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as;
(a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or
(b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury."
22 All the ingredients of the offence must be present before a conviction can be ordered. The injuries sustained, the manner of the assault and the weapons used are all relevant factors. The intention or knowledge which is foremost ingredient of Section 307 of the IPC must precede the act attributed to the accused. This intention/knowledge has to be gathered from the circumstances and not necessarily from the ensuing result.
Thus, to bring home a charge U/s 307 IPC, it is an intention or knowledge coupled with some overt act in execution of such intention or knowledge, which is required to be seen. This intention or knowledge is to be gathered from the attending circumstances, injuries sustained, manner of assault, FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 50/60 nature of weapon used, severity of blows or number of blows etc. The Court has to see whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the requisite intention or knowledge or under the circumstances as mentioned in Section 307 IPC.
In a judgment titled as 'Sivamani & Anr. Vs. State' dated 28.11.2023, Crl. Appeal No. 3619 of 2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that :
"ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
8. Section 307, IPC reads as under:'307. Attempt to murder.--
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description fora 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 tosuch punishment as is herein beforementioned. 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.
Illustrations(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued, A would beguilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years,exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section.(d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it This Court is fur to Z's servants to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.'
9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed outthat '...The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.' The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019)3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha(supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 51/60 maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, 'The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflictedcan be considered to infer intent.'
47. In another recent judgment titled as 'S. K. Khaja Vs. The State of Maharashtra' dated 23.08.2023, Crl. Appeal No.1183/2011, the Hon'b;e Supreme Court of India has observed that :
"8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf 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 the 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 that 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 appellant/ 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 appellant in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appealdeserves to be dismissed."
48. In the judgment titled as 'State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav' on 30 November, 2006, Appeal (Crl.) 1334 of 2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that :
"To justify a conviction under this Section (307 IPC), it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 52/60 result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. (1983 (2) SCC 28), Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004 (3) SCC 793) and R. Parkash v. State of Karnataka (JT 2004 (2) SC 348).
In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR 1965 SC 843) it was observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307.
Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury."
49. From above discussed law, it is clear that for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances that if by that act caused death, offender would have been guilty of murder. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
50. The Intent or Knowledge on part of accused persons can be culled out from the act so committed by them. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kesar Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2008 while laying down difference between "intention" and "knowledge" in an offence, observed as follows:
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 53/60Knowledge v. Intention
20. We must keep in mind the distinction between knowledge and intention. Knowledge in the context of Section 299 would, inter alia, mean consciousness or realization or understanding. The distinction between the terms `knowledge' and `intention' again is a difference of degrees.
An inference of knowledge that it is likely to cause death must be arrived at keeping in view the fact situation obtaining in each case. The accused must be aware of the consequences of his act.
21. Knowledge denotes a bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which the human mind might itself remain supine or inactive whereas intention connotes a conscious state in which mental faculties are roused into activity and summed up into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and specific end which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself.
This was discussed extensively in Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1991) 2 SCC 32], stating :
"...We may note at this state that 'intention' is different from 'motive' or 'ignorance' or 'negligence'. It is the 'knowledge' or 'intention' with which the act is done that makes difference, in arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder. Therefore, it is necessary to know the meaning of these expressions as used in these provisions...
...The 'intention' and 'knowledge' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind and their existence has to be gathered from the circumstances, such as the, weapon used, the ferocity of attack, multiplicity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances. The framers of the code designedly used the words 'intention' and 'knowledge' and it is accepted that the knowledge of the consequences which may result in doing an act is not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue. Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 54/60 and not the same thing as intention that such consequences should ensue. As compared to 'knowledge', 'intention' requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end."
Kenny in "Outlines of Criminal Law" (17th Edition at page
31) has observed:
Intention: To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a desired objective; the noun 'intention' in the present connection is used to denote the state of mind of a man who not only foresees but also desires the possible consequences of his conduct. Thus if one man throws another from a high tower or cuts off his head it would seem plain that he both foresees the victim's death and also desires it: the desire and the foresight will also be the same if a person knowingly leaves a helpless invalid or infant without nourishment or other necessary support until death supervenes. It will be noted that there cannot be intention unless there is also foresight, since a man must decide to his own satisfaction, and accordingly must foresee, that to which his express purpose is directed.
Again, a man cannot intend to do a thing unless he desires to do it. It may well be a thing that he dislikes doing, but he dislikes still more the consequences of his not doing it. That is to say he desires the lesser of two evils, and therefore has made up his mind to bring about that one.
Russell on Crime (12th Edition at Page 41) has observed:
"In the present analysis of the mental element in crime the word 'intention' is used to denote the mental attitude of a man who has resolved to bring about a certain result if he can possibly do so. He shapes his line of conduct so as to achieve a particular end at which he aims."
It can thus be seen that the 'knowledge' as contrasted with 'intention' signifies a state of mental realisation with the bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive. On the other hand, 'intention' is a conscious state in which mental faculties are aroused into activity and summoned into action for the purpose of achieving a conceived end. It means shaping of FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 55/60 one's conduct so as to bring about a certain event. Therefore in the case of 'intention' mental faculties are projected in a set direction. Intention need not necessarily involve premeditation. Whether there is such an intention or not is a question of fact.
51. In the present case in hand, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that while accused Monu caught hold of Suraj while accused Sunder and Sonu repeatedly hit him with a knife/ a pointed weapon. Also, when his brother Ram tried to intervene, they also stabbed him with the said knife/the pointed weapon (Gupti). As per MLCs, following injuries were observed on the person of victims/injured:-
SURAJ Incised wound around 3 cm X 2 cm over posterior aspect of left upper arm;
Incised wound around 1 cm X 1 cm over posterior aspect of left upper arm;
Incised wound 1 X 1 cm over left lateral aspect of upper arm;
Incised wound of 2 X 1 cm over left flank region;
Incised wound of 1 X 1 cm over left flank region;
Incised wound of 1 X 1 cm over left flank region;
Incised wound 1 X 1 cm left upper quadrant of hip.
RAM Injury on the right side lumbar region 4 cm lateral to mid-line around L2 vertibra.FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 56/60
XVIII IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION:
52. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to refer Section 34 IPC :-
Section 34 IPC 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.
Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime.
53. In a recent judgment titled as Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, in Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2013 with Ashad Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2013, dated 28.01.2025, The Honble Supreme Court of India has held :
18. By now, it is a settled principle of law that for con-
victing the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds. It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime. It must be established that the criminal act has been done in fur- therance of the common intention of all the accused. Re- liance in support of the aforesaid proposition could be placed on the following judgments of this Court in the cases of:
(i)Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another v. State of Gujarat;
(ii)Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab;
(iii)Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal(supra); and
(iv)Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh.FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 57/60
54. Section 34 IPC embodies the principle that if two or more persons intend to do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. If the intention or purpose is common, so must be the responsibility.
To attract applicability of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before a person can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The ultimate act should be done in furtherance of common intention. Common intention requires a pre- arranged plan, which can be even formed at the spur of the moment or simultaneously just before or even during the attack.
55. In the present case, it has been proved by the cogent, reliable, untainted testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that accused Monu caught hold of the victim/complainant Suraj whereas, the accused persons Sonu and Sunder repeatedly stabbed him (victim/complainant Suraj) and when Suraj's brother (PW-2 Ram) intervened, he was also stabbed in his back in such a manner that left the edged portion of the knife/Gupti embedded in his body. These overt acts committed by the accused persons coupled with prior concert are sufficient to infer that all the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention.
XIX. FINDING:-
56. As per the testimony of both the injured/victims, the accused persons firstly grabbed (caught hold) the complainant Suraj and thereafter, repeatedly stabbed him with knife/Gupti/pointed weapon, causing multiple stab injuries upon his person and further, when his brother Ram tried to rescue the complainant, they stabbed him (Ram) as well with knife/Gupti with such a force that pointed end of the weapon got stuck inside the body of Ram and when the accused tried to pull out the same from the body of Ram, handle of the same was detached leaving the FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 58/60 pointed part inside the body of Ram.
As per the medical evidence, victim/injured Suraj has sustained seven (7) injuries including those to his posterior aspect of upper arm, flank region, quadrant of hip which indicates that accused persons stabbed him at vital parts of his body that could have potentially resulted into his death. Furthermore, when Suraj's brother Ram intervened to rescue Suraj, he too was assaulted with such force that left the knife's edged portion embedded in his (Ram's) body. The sequence and nature of attacks clearly indicate that the accused/assailants continued their assault on Suraj without any restraint and they (accused persons) did not cease their assault on Suraj until an external force/factor (Suraj's brother Ram's intervention), beyond their control, intervened.
The abovestated facts and circumstances of the present case, manner of inflicting injuries, assault launched in a pre-meditated manner, number of injuries on the person of victim Suraj, weapon used for commission of offence and the body parts where injuries have been inflicted by the accused persons, the acts committed by the accused persons clearly demonstrate and establish that all the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention with the intention to cause death of Suraj (Act covered under clause firstly of Section 300 IPC).
57. On appreciation of evidence which came on record and on applying the principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is held that Prosecution has established that the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention to cause death of the victim/injured Suraj, had attacked upon him (Suraj) in a pre-meditated manner. The oral testimony of the victim/injured persons is corroborated with the independent medical record. Nothing came on record which could shatter the veracity of testimony of the PWs or falsify the claim of the Prosecution.
Accordingly, the Point of determination is decided as under :-
FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 59/60Finding :-
Whether the Prosecution proves that the accused persons did any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances Positive/Yes that, if he by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder?
XX. CONCLUSION:-
58. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case and the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons Sonu, Monu and Sunder that they all in furtherance of their common intention did an act i.e. accused Monu withhold the complainant Suraj while accused Sonu and Sunder assaulted the victim Suraj with the knife/sharp edged instrument (Gupti) with such intention and under such circumstances that if by their acts, caused death of Suraj, they would be guilty of murder.
Accordingly, accused persons Sonu, Monu and Sunder are hereby, convicted for an offence of Attempt to murder punishable U/s 307/34 IPC.
59. A copy of this Judgment, be supplied free of cost to the accused persons forthwith.
Announced and dictated in the open court (Surabhi Sharma Vats) on 31th day of May, 2025 ASJ-04, Shahdara/KKD Courts, Delhi/31.05.2025 This judgment contains 60 pages, all signed by me.
(Surabhi Sharma Vats) ASJ-04, Shahdara/KKD Courts, Delhi/31.05.2025 FIR No. 94/2017 PS Seema Puri State Vs. Sonu & Ors. Page 60/60