Delhi District Court
State vs Subrat Das on 20 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO.351/2022
CNR No: DLST-01-006725-2022
FIR No. 239/2022
Police Station: Sangam Vihar
Under Section: 307 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
Subrat Das
S/o Sh. Ramesh Das
R/o H. No. H-15/51, Ratiya Marg
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
.....Accused
Date of institution : 15.07.2022
Date of committal : 15.07.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 21.04.2025
Date of pronouncement : 12.05.2025
Decision : Convicted
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION On the intervening night of 15-16/04/2022, when Sub Inspector (SI) Talib Khan was present in the police station Sangam Vihar on emergency duty, medico legal case (MLC) information from Majeedia Hospital was received vide daily diary (DD) no. 11A dated 16.04.2022 to the police station which was marked to him for investigation. Investigating Officer (IO) page no. 1 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: BUDHIRAJ 2025.05.20 15:52:30 +0530 Talib Khan along with Constable (Ct.) Arvind reached at Majeedia Hospital where one injured person was identified as Roshan Lal, aged about 25 years, S/o Shri Vipin Ram, R/o A-153, Dasgarha Mohalla, Kalka Garhi Village, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi who was under treatment. IO obtained the MLC no.154/22 of the said injured wherein the doctor mentioned the history of assault as 'physical assault at 1:05am on 16.05.2022 presented to ER with throat injury with profused bleeding, L/E approx 4x2x1 inch lacerated wound/open edges over anterior aspect of neck just below thyroid cartilage' and he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. The injuries suffered by Roshal Lal were on vital part of the body i.e. his neck and there was substantial loss of his blood. No eye witness was available at the hospital and the statement of injured could not be recorded owing to his medical condition.
2. As per MLC of injured and the general circumstances, offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was found to be committed. Thereafter, endorsement was made on the DD entry itself and a report was prepared and produced before duty officer for registration of first information report (FIR) who got the same registered.
3. During further investigation, blood stained clothes of the injured were provided by the doctor at HAH Centenary Hospital which was seized through seizure memo. Thereafter, IO/SI Talib Khan visited the Safdarjung Hospital and came to know that injured was undergoing treatment. Family members of page no. 2 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ 15:52:34 Date: 2025.05.20 +0530 the injured were examined by IO and it was revealed that incident occurred near Royal Sweets on Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar. IO visited the spot but no blood stain was found on the road or nearby spot. Local inquiry was conducted by IO but no witness could be traced and no CCTV cameras covering the place of incident could be found as well. IO called the crime team, South District and got examined the spot.
4. On 16.04.2022, in evening hours, it is informed to the IO that operation of injured was successful and the doctors had allowed the family to meet him. Thereafter, IO reached Safdarjung Hospital where injured was found who had been bandaged across his neck due to injuries and was unable to speak but upon request of IO, injured very slowly and in a faint voice disclosed the details of the incident. Thereafter, statement of injured was reduced in writing.
5. On 17.04.2022, search of the assailant was conducted near Royal Sweets Shops on Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar and after local inquiry, his address was ascertained and he was apprehended from his residence i.e. H-15/51, Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar and after interrogation, he admitted to committing the offence in relation to the present case. Thereafter, accused was arrested, his arrest and personal search memo were prepared at the spot and information regarding his arrest was provided to his wife Ms. Pooja. IO observed that some blood stains were present on the clothes which were worn by the accused and upon asking, accused admitted that he was wearing the said clothes page no. 3 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 when he attacked the injured. Thereafter, IO retrieved the said clothes from the body of the accused which were seized vide seizure memo. Accused was brought to the police station and his disclosure statement was recorded. Weapon of the offence could not be recovered as accused claimed to have thrown the same in a naala.
6. During further investigation, accused was taken to AIIMS Hospital for medical examination whereafter he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where he was produced before the injured who immediately identified him as the person who had attacked upon him with a knife on the night of 15-16/04/2022. Thereafter, supplementary statement of injured was recorded under section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C).
7. On 30.05.2022, injured again joined the investigation of the case after being discharged from Safdarjung Hospital. IO along with the injured went at the place of incident where its site plan was prepared by the IO at the instance of the injured and supplementary statement of complainant in this regard was recorded. During further investigation, discharge summary of injured was obtained from Safdarjung Hospital as per which he was admitted on 16.04.2022 and was discharged on 28.05.2022. Thereafter, the said discharge summary was submitted in HAH Centenary Hospital for obtaining the final opinion regarding the nature of injuries inflicted upon the injured and as per the opinion dated 05.06.2022, the injured sustained grievous injuries. Exhibits which were seized during the course page no. 4 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:52:41 +0530 of investigation were deposited in forensic science laboratory (FSL) for forensic analysis. On the basis of statements of the injured, police witnesses and MLC no.154/2022 of injured, there was sufficient material to prosecute the accused and therefore, charge sheet qua accused was prepared for offence punishable under section 307 IPC and the same was filed before the court.
COGNIZANCE AND COMMITTAL
8. Cognizance of the offence was taken while the accused was in judicial custody and post the compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, supply of charge sheet and other documents, the case was committed to the Court of Session on 15.07.2022. Accused was charged vide order dated 14.10.2022 for offence under Section 307 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is also pertinent to note that the supplementary charge- sheet also came to be filed in the Court on 17.08.2024 containing the result from FSL.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
9. During prosecution evidence, ten (10) witnesses were examined, comprising of injured, police officials who participated in the investigation proceeding and the concerned doctors. Witnesses examined are enlisted as under:
A. PW1 is Dr. Iliyas, Junior Resident, Mazidia Hospital, Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi who medically examined page no. 5 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 the patient Roshan at about 01:37am on 16.04.2022. He got marked MLC as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that on 05.06.2022, he opined the injuries as grievous. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given.
B. PW2 is SI Ajay who was Incharge mobile crime team, South district, New Delhi on 16.04.2022. He got marked his report as Ex.PW2/A. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given.
C. PW3 is SI Balwant Singh who was posted as ASI, photographer with mobile crime team, South district, New Delhi on 16.04.2022. He got marked four photographs of the spot as Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given.
D. PW4 is ASI Sher Singh who was posted as duty officer at PS Sangam Vihar on 16.04.2022. He got marked DD entry 11A as Ex.PW4/A and copy of FIR as Ex.PW4/B. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
E. PW5 is HC Sohan Lal who was posted at PS Sangam Vihar on 17.04.2022. He deposed that he joined the investigation with IO SI Talib Khan. He got marked arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW5/A, seizure memo of clothes bearing blood stains as Ex.PW5/B, jama talasi as Ex.PW5/C and disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW5/D. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition. He further deposed that IO page no. 6 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:52:47 +0530 recorded his statement. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
F. PW6 is Satish Kumar, Record Keeper, Medical Record Department, Safdarjung Hospital who brought the entire original record regarding the discharge summary of injured Roshan Lal vide OPD/MRD No. 12166/12160. He got marked medical record of injured as Ex.PW6/A (colly) (OSR) (256 pages including the rear pages) and discharge record along with photocopy of the discharge summary bearing the stamps of Medical Record Department as Ex.PW6/B (colly). He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
G. PW7 is Dr. Bishnu Goswami, Junior Resident, Department of Hospital Administration, AIIMS, New Delhi who got marked the copy of report dated 13.05.2023 as Ex.PW7/A. He deposed that a board comprising of other doctors and himself was constituted on the directions of this court vide order dated 20.02.2023 to examine the victim and on 13.05.2023, after examining the victim, the board gave the opinion. He identified the signatures of other doctors who were in the board. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
H. PW8 is Roshan Lal who was injured in the present case. He deposed on the lines of his previous statement to the police. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition. He also correctly identified the case property Ex.P1 (colly) i.e. two pieces of blood stained cotton wool stab. He was cross page no. 7 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 examined on behalf of the accused.
I. PW9 is Dr. Suminder Kaur, Senior Forensic Chemical Examiner, Biology Division, FSL Rohini, Delhi who got marked her detailed report as Ex.PW9/A. She was not cross examined on behalf of the accused.
J. PW10 is SI Talib Khan who was the investigating officer of the present case and who deposed about various facets of his investigation. He got marked GD number 11A as Ex.PW10/A, seizure memo of pullanda containing blood stained clothes of patient as Ex.PW10/B, rukka as Ex.PW10/C, site plan as Ex.PW10/D and seizure memo of blood sample of injured as Ex.PW10/E. He also deposed about arrest memo as already Ex.PW5/A, personal search memo of accused as already Ex.PW5/C, disclosure statement of accused as already Ex.PW5/D and seizure memo of blood stained clothes as already Ex.PW5/B. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition. He further deposed that he filed the charge sheet and after receiving of FSL result, he also filed the supplementary charge sheet. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
Digitally
signed by
NAVJEET
NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20
15:52:52
+0530
10. Prosecution evidence stood closed vide order dated 03.03.2025 followed by statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the accused, inter alia, claimed that he was falsely implicated by the injured Roshan Lal because he used to call his page no. 8 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 wife to which he used to object but he did not mend ways and would keep on calling her after getting drunk. He further stated that on 15.04.2022, he received calls from Injured Roshan Lal asking for his help and after reaching at the spot with his wife, he saw him in injured condition and he along with his wife on his motorcycle immediately took him to the hospital. He desired to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11. Accused brought one witness namely Ms. Pooja, his wife, in his defence who was examined as DW1 and who deposed that accused is her husband and complainant Roshan Lal was the friend of her husband for last one year from the date of the incident. She further deposed that complainant and accused both used to work in the same courier company in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and they used to visit the house of each other and there was family type relation between them.
11.1. DW1 further deposed that on 15.04.2022, at about 10:00-10:30pmm accused returned home from his office and she was unwell on that day and after having medicine, she went for sleep. She further deposed that accused also slept and in the night time, at around 12:30-01:00am, complainant called on the mobile phone of accused 02-03 times but the mobile phone of the accused was on silent mode and therefore accused could not pick the phone call of the complainant and thereafter, complainant called on her mobile phone and she picked up the page no. 9 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 said call and talked to the complainant who said in low voice that 'mujhe chote lag gayi hain, jaldi se aa jao Royal Sweets ke pass, aur main (Roshan) jyada bolne ki condition me nahi hoon'. She further deposed that thereafter, she asked accused to wake up and informed him about the phone call and further asked the accused to go to Royal Sweets to see the condition of Roshan.
11.2. DW1 further deposed that upon her insistence, accused agreed to go to Royal Sweets to see the complainant and thereafter she along with accused reached there where they saw that complainant had sustained injuries and blood was oozing from his neck and he had put his hand on his wound. She further deposed that thereafter, she along with accused took complainant to Majeedia Hospital where he got admitted and while they were shifting the complainant to the hospital, her husband also sustained blood stains on his clothes as blood was oozing from the wound of complainant. She further deposed that she also informed the family members of Roshan about the aforesaid fact.
11.3. DW1 further deposed that family members of Roshan also reached at Majeedia Hospital and police also reached in the hospital and they made inquiries from accused. She further deposed that while police was making inquiries from the accused, she left the hospital and returned to her house.
Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:52:59 +0530 11.4. DW1 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 16.04.2022, she received a call from the police and she was asked to reach at PS Sangam Vihar and accordingly, she went to PS page no. 10 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Sangam Vihar where she came to know the accused had been falsely arrested in the present case. She further deposed that she along with her husband went to Royal Sweets only to help the complainant. DW1 was cross examined on behalf of the State.
Accused did not lead further defence evidence which was put to quietus vide order dated 04.04.2025.
ARGUMENTS
12. Sh. L D Singh, Ld. Additional Prosecutor for the State made stout submissions that the involvement of the accused in the incident in question stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by the unblemished testimony of injured PW8. Also, the MLC indicates grievous injuries which also lend sufficient corroboration to the version of the injured.
13. On the contrary, Ld. Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel (DCLADC) Sh. Tariq Hashmi for accused argued with vehemence for exoneration of the accused from the charge citing germane lapses in the case of the prosecution. It is pointed out that injured PW8 is shown to be suffering from Schizophrenia as per the report of Doctor PW7 and, thus, it is established on record that the injured PW8 cannot be a reliable and credible witness. He further pointed out that PW8 was admittedly having a pipe in his throat therefore he can be said to be not in position to record his statement. Further, the said Madhu, who is stated to be the person in relation to whom injured had a conversation with the accused has not been page no. 11 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 examined. Ld. DCLADC further emphasized that it was the accused and his wife who took the injured to the hospital and if the accused had stabbed him, there was no occasion for him to have removed the injured to the hospital. Ld. Counsel further highlighted many lapses in the cross examination of the IO like parents of the victim having not been examined, there is no endorsement on the rukka, no independent witness examined, statement of the IO that no food pipe was present in the throat of the injured is contrary to the record, no certificate from the doctor about the fitness of the injured to give statement etc. Lastly, Ld. DCLADC for accused argued that accused was arrested in the police station which is again contrary to the statement of the IO that accused was arrested from his house.
14. I have endowed my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, evidence led and arguments advanced.
FORMAL WITNESSES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE INVESTIGATION
15. Before adverting to the testimony of the injured and other public witnesses, a brief reference to the testimony of formal witnesses can be made. The chronology of the events as unfolded in the present case can be noted from the testimony of IO/ SI Talib Khan PW10 that during the intervening night of 15/16.04.2022, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Sangam Vihar and was on emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. At about 03:20am, he received GD No. 11A Ex.PW10/A page no. 12 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: BUDHIRAJ 2025.05.20 15:53:04 +0530 regarding MLC from Majeedia Hospital and accordingly, he reached at Majeedia Hospital and found injured admitted there who was in serious condition and doctor declared him unfit for statement. He further deposed that he collected the MLC of injured Roshan Lal and doctor also handed over him sealed pullanda containing blood stained clothes of the patient which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B and that injured was referred to Safdarjung Hospital.
15.1. PW10 further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex.PW10/C on GD no.11A Ex.PW10/A and returned to police station where he handed over the rukka to duty officer and got registered the present FIR. He further deposed that parents of the injured met him in the hospital and they told him that incident had taken place near Royal Sweets Sangam Vihar, accordingly, he reached at the spot i.e. near Royal Sweets Sangam Vihar where he called the crime team and got inspected the spot.
15.2. PW10 further deposed that on 16.04.2022, in the evening, he came to know that operation of the injured was successful and accordingly, he reached at Safdarjung Hospital where the injured was found to be fit for statement. He recorded the statement of the injured and thereafter, he returned to the spot and searched for the accused in the area of Sangam Vihar but he could not be traced out.
15.3. PW10 further deposed that on 17.04.2022, he along with HC Sohan Lal who was the beat officer of the area searched page no. 13 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 for the accused in the area of Sangam Vihar and when they reached in the area of H Block, Sangam Vihar and went to the house of accused Subrat Dass, he was found present. He apprehended the accused who was wearing the blood stained clothes. He further deposed that he interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. He also conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PW5/C and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D. 15.4. PW10 further deposed that he sealed the blood stained clothes of the accused with the seal of 'TK' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and thereafter accused was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where he was identified by the injured in respect of which PW10 recorded the supplementary statement of injured.
15.5. PW10 further deposed that after the injured got discharged from the hospital, he along with injured went to the spot where PW10 prepared the site plan Ex.PW10/D at the instance of the injured. He further deposed that he seized the blood sample of the injured vide memo Ex.PW10/E. 15.6. PW10 further deposed that he prepared the charge sheet and filed before the court and exhibits were sent to FSL and after receiving the FSL result, he filed the supplementary charge sheet.
16. Alongside PW10, PW5 HC Sohan Lal also joined page no. 14 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 the investigation who deposed that on 17.04.2022 with IO, they reached at H-15/51, Sangam Vihar for search of the accused who met them in his house. He further deposed that accused was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/A and he got effected recovery of one t-shirt and one lower having blood stains on it which were kept in a pullanda and sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He further deposed that IO conducted the jamatalasi of the accused vide memo Ex.PW5/C and accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW5/D. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to Safdarjung Hospital along with accused where injured identified the accused.
17. The other police witness is PW2 SI Ajay who deposed that on 16.04.2022, he was posted as In-charge Mobile Crime Team, South District, New Delhi and on that day, on receipt of a call from control room, he along with his crime team i.e. ASI Balwant Singh-photographer and HC Girish Tyagi- proficient reached at the spot i.e. in front of royal sweets, Gali no. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where officials of PS Sangam Vihar including IO SI Talib Khan met them. He further deposed that they inspected the spot and ASI Balwant Singh PW3 clicked the photographs. He further deposed that he prepared his report Ex.PW2/A.
18. The next witness from the mobile crime team is PW3 SI Balwant Singh who deposed that he clicked the photographs Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D of the spot and handed over the same to the IO.
page no. 15 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022
19. PW4 ASI Sher Singh deposed about recording of DD entry 11A Ex.PW4/A and registration of the FIR Ex.PW4/B upon receiving of tehrir.
20. As such, no material infirmities were pointed out in the testimonies of the afore-mentioned witnesses on behalf of the accused except for the testimony of the investigating officer PW10, which part I shall advert to during discussion on the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused.
EVALUATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE INJURED
21. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of injured Roshan Lal who has been examined as PW8 and who deposed about the incident in question that on 15.04.2022, hot talks were exchanged between him and accused telephonically in respect of some money issue. He further deposed that his friend Madhu was also working as courier boy in his office and that accused Subrat also abused Madhu telephonically on 15.04.2022 and thereafter, he made call to accused Subrat Dass as to why he had abused Madhu upon which accused started abusing him also. He further deposed that accused Subrat Dass told injured Roshan Lal to come and meet him and they will talk. Thereafter, phone was hanged. On the same day at about 12:30 AM, PW8 reached in the gali in front of the house of accused Subrat Dass, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. Thereafter, accused also reached there and started talking to page no. 16 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:53:14 +0530 PW8. He further deposed that he asked him as to why he was abusing his friend Madhu and it appeared that accused was in drunken condition. He further deposed that thereafter, he asked PW8 to have cold drink. Thereafter, he along with accused reached outside the Royal Sweet Shop, Sangam Vihar where accused started scuffling (hatha pai) with him. He further stated that he tried to stop him and accused took out a knife and stab him on his throat. He further deposed that he immediately caught hold his throat with his hands in order to stop the blood as the blood was oozing from his throat. He further deposed that his clothes also got blood stained and he became little bit unconscious and regained his consciousness at Jamia Hospital. He further deposed that on the next day morning, after surgery he regained his consciousness at Safdarjung Hospital and he remained admitted at Safdarjung Hospital for about 1½ month. He further deposed that police officials met him in a ward of Safdarjung Hospital and inquired him about the present case.
22. In the cross examination of PW8, he affirmed having known the accused for 2-3 years prior to the incident as they were residing in the same locality. He also affirmed that accused worked with him in the same office for about one month prior to the incident and that they both were working as courier boys. He also affirmed that they both used to roam together prior to the incident. PW8 also acknowledged that wife of the accused and the accused might have taken him to Jamia Hospital and that pipe was put inside his throat during the operation. He started speaking little bit after about 15 days of the incident. He did not page no. 17 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 remember the exact date when police officials inquired him regarding the incident and recorded his statement. He did not remember whether police had recorded his statement in the present case or not. PW8 went on to add that he called on the mobile phone of the accused 3-4 times prior to the incident.
23. It is one of the ambitious arguments on behalf of the accused that the testimony of injured cannot be relied upon as eventually injured was suffering from Schizophrenia which disease debilitated him from deposing before the court and given the nature of the said disease where the inflicted person suffers from hallucinations, it would be unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the injured.
24. To allay this concern, a brief landscape of the record is warranted herein. Record of the judicial file reveals that on 20.02.2023, injured PW Roshan Lal was summoned for prosecution evidence, however, it was recorded by Ld. Predecessor of this court that she had tried to interact with the injured witness who seemed to be lost and was not responding. It was also recorded therein that parents of the witness submitted that after the incident in question, witness had suffered a traumatic set back and shock and since then he had stopped speaking or behaving normally. In such eventuality, the then SHO PS Sangam Vihar was directed to depute an officer to take the witness Roshan Lal to a psychiatrist / clinical psychologist at AIIMS Hospital for assessment on following aspects:
page no. 18 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 "(i) Mental condition of witness Roshan Lal;
(ii) Whether the witness is in a position to depose as witness before this Court and understands the proceedings being conducted;
(iii) Whether there are chances of improvement in condition of PW Roshan Lal with treatment so that he would be able to depose before this court;
(iv) Whether the shock and the injuries suffered by witness Roshan Lal due to the present incident of stabbing with knife in the neck is the cause of the present condition of the witness who is neither speaking nor responding to the questions;
(v) Any other details."
25. Judicial record further reveals that on 28.03.2023, file was taken up by the court on receipt of the report of AIIMS, New Delhi and it was recorded therein that witness Roshan Lal had appeared thrice before the medical board and his assessment was going on.
26. On 10.05.2023, it was recorded that a report dated 08.05.2022 was received from AIIMS wherein it was reported that the board members had decided that the witness Roshan Lal needed to undergo detailed psychological assessment with Dr. Swati Kedia for 12.05.2023 and two weeks extension was sought for submitting the final report by the medical board.
27. Record further reveals that on 19.07.2023, the report was furnished by the medical board and Dr. Mamta Sood, Chairperson, Medical Board, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi was NAVJEET page no. 19 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIRBUDHIRAJ no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.05.20 15:53:21 +0530 summoned to prove the report furnished by the medical board. Further, on 26.08.2023, Dr. Mamta Sood, Chairperson appeared before the court and submitted that she had not brought the original medical report regarding the medical assessment of witness / injured Roshan Lal and that the original documents were with Dr. Bishnu Goswami, upon which, Dr. Bishnu Goswami was summoned who was examined as PW7. The deposition of PW7 Dr. Bishnu Goswami, Junior Resident, Department of Hospital Administration, AIIMS, New Delhi, for reference, can be read as under:
"I am posted as above. A board comprising of Dr. Mamta Sood (Chairperson, Department of Psychiatry), Dr. Neeraj Nischal (Addl. Professor, Department of Medicine), Dr. Bichitra Nanda Patra (Addl. Professor, Department of Psychiatry), Dr. Roopa Rajan (Associate Professor, Department of Neurology), Dr. Swati Kedia (Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry), Dr. Samuel Rajan (Assistant Professor, Department of ENT) and myself was constituted on the directions of this Court vide Order dated 20.02.2023 to examine the victim Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Vipin Kumar. On 13.05.2023, after examining Roshan Lal, the board give following opinion:
"1. On Medical, Pulmonary, ENT & Neurological examination, Mr. Roshan Lal does not have any physical disease. Based on history, examination and Psychological evaluation, currently he has Schizophrenia.
2. He needs treatment for Schizophrenia before deposing as page no. 20 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 witness in court.
3. With regular treatment and follow- up, he can improve.
4. Can not be commented upon."
The above-said opinion was given in respect of following questions asked by this Court vide Order dated 20.02.2023 :
"(i) Mental condition of witness Roshan Lal;
(ii) Whether the witness is in a position to depose as witness before this Court and understands the proceedings being conducted;
(iii) Whether there are chances of improvement in condition of PW Roshan Lal with treatment so that he would be able to depose before this Court;
(iv) Whether the shock and the injuries suffered by witness Roshan Lal due to the present incident of stabbing with knife in the neck is the cause of the present condition of the witness who is neither speaking nor responding to the questions;
(v) Any other details."
The report dated 13.05.2023 was sent to this Court through Special Messenger. The copy of the said report is now marked as Mark PW7/A bearing my signatures at Point A. I can identify the signatures of other doctors also who were members of the Board as I was coordinator of the said Board and have seen their handwriting and signatures.
The signatures of Dr. Mamta Sood (Chairperson, Department of Psychiatry) is at Point B, Dr. Neeraj Nischal (Addl. Professor, Department of Medicine) is at Point C, Dr. Bichitra Nanda Patra (Addl.
Professor, Department of Psychiatry) is at Point D, Dr. Roopa Rajan (Associate Professor, Department of page no. 21 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Neurology) is at Point E, Dr. Swati Kedia (Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry) is at Point F and Dr. Samuel Rajan (Assistant Professor, Department of ENT) is at Point G. I can produce the certified copy of the said report, if required (Ld. LAC for the accused has not disputed the genuineness of the report).
XXXX by Sh. Tariq Hashmi, Ld. LAC for accused.
Schizophrenia is a major mental illness in which the patient loose his mental balance or control. The said illness can be caused because of any family history and it can be caused because of other reasons also. There are many symptoms in the said illness and hallucinations is one of them."
28. The conspectus of the testimony of PW7 is that based on history, examination and psychological evaluation, injured was found having Schizophrenia, needed treatment for the same before deposition as witness in court and with regular treatment and follow up, he can improve.
29. The injured appeared for deposition before the court on 25.04.2024 and 01.10.2024 whose testimony was recorded without noticing any abnormal conduct or outlook. The cross examination of injured was also conducted on 01.10.2024 and it nowhere came on record either by the prosecution or by the defence that the injured was unfit for deposition owing to his medical condition. Ld. DCLADC for accused suggested the injured about being suffering from Schizophrenia, having persistent delusions and persistent hallucinations which was page no. 22 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 refuted by him. However, since medical record in respect of the injured Roshan Lal demonstrated his medical condition, this court before pronouncement of judgment considered it judicious to examine injured PW8 Roshan Lal on his medical condition. Injured appeared before the court on 07.05.2025 and was examined under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, the record of which is also reproduced as under:
"Ques No.1 Have you ever suffered from schizophrenia which is a disorder that affects a persons ability to think, feel and behave clearly?
Answer. After I suffered the incident in question i.e. the stab wound on my neck, I went in shock and depression, was unable to speak properly and it went on for almost 1½ year. Thereafter, I started living a normal life.
Ques No.2 Did you take any treatment for the afore-said?
Answer. Yes.
Ques No.3 On 20.02.2023, you appeared before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and it was observed that you seemed lost and unresponsive, why was it so?
Answer. Since I went into shock and depression after the incident, I sometimes got lost like when I was sitting, I kept sitting for long time and when I was standing, kept standing for long time.
Ques No.4 What do you do now for living?
Answer. I work at a shop of water supply.
Court Observation: Injured/PW8 Roshan Lal has satisfactorily responded to the afore-said queries page no. 23 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 and appears to be rational in his response and outlook."
30. From the afore-noted, it is crystal clear that the injured went into shock and depression after the occurrence of incident in question where he was brutally stabbed on his throat. He was unable to speak properly for almost one and half years but thereafter he started living normal life. Injured also clarified having taken treatment for his medical condition. Further, injured was also confronted with the observation made by Ld. Predecessor of this court on 20.02.2023, as noted above, where it was recorded that injured seemed lost and unresponsive, to which, the injured clarified that he went into shock and depression after the incident, which could have been the reason for his abnormal conduct as noted in the order dated 20.02.2023. Towards the end of his examination by the court, it was also observed that injured PW8 Roshan Lal had satisfactorily responded to the queries and appeared to be rational in his response and outlook.
31. Thus, the upshot of the foregoing discussion on the medical condition of the injured Roshan Lal is that though the injured must have suffered from Schizophrenia but his said condition could have been attributed to the unfortunate event suffered by him wherein he was inflicted with a stab wound on his throat which drove him into shock and depression but having taken medical treatment over the period of one and half years, injured must have recovered and eventually deposed convincingly before the court. There is nothing on record to page no. 24 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 indicate any medical disability of the injured rendering him unfit for deposition before the court. In his cross examination also on behalf of the accused, the injured gave proper responses and there was no such observation reflecting upon any mental disability being inflicting the injured and prohibiting him from standing the test of the cross examination.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
32. Injuries on the person of PW8 were got proved by the testimony of PW1 who deposed that on the intervening night of 15/16.04.2022, he was posted as Medical Officer at HAH, Centenary Hospital, New Delhi and on that night, at about 1.37am (16.04.2022), one injured Roshan was brought to the emergency with alleged history of assault. He further deposed that he medically examined the injured and there was throat injury approximate 4x2x1 inches lacerated wound with open edge over anterior aspect of neck just below the thyroid cartilage, with profound bleeding and the injured was unfit for statement. He further deposed that on 05.06.2022, again the police officials placed the record before him and after going through the MLC and other record, he opined the injuries as grievous and mentioned this fact on the MLC Ex.PW1/A.
33. PW6 Sh. Satish Kumar, Record Keeper, Medical Record Department, Safdarjung Hospital brought the entire original record regarding the discharge summary of injured Roshan Lal vide OPD/MRD no.12166/12160 Ex.PW6/A (OSR).
page no. 25 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:53:38 +0530 He proved the documents Ex.PW6/B (colly) of admission and discharge record along with photocopy of the discharge summary bearing the stamps of Medical Record Department.
34. The afore-noted MLC Ex.PW1/A and discharge summary Ex.PW6/A establish the fact that injured PW8 was treated at HAH Centenary Hospital for his stab wound on his throat on the intervening night of 15/16.04.2022 and his injury was opined to be grievous in nature. Further, his discharge summary Ex.PW6/A reveals that injured was discharged from the hospital after about the stay of one and half months. Otherwise also, all these aspects have not been oppugned on behalf of the accused.
WITNESS FROM FORENSIC
35. PW9 Dr. Suminder Kaur, Senior Forensic Chemical Examiner, Biology Division, FSL Rohini has proved the FSL report Ex.PW9/A which concluded that the DNA profile generated from the source of the blood sample of the injured is found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of t-shirt and lower of the accused. This indicates that the blood of the injured was found present on the t-shirt and lower of the accused, which as per the statement of PW10 SI Talib Khan was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:53:43 +0530 page no. 26 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022
36. The stand of the accused can be gauged from the suggestions posed to injured PW8, which for reference, is noted as under:
"It is wrong to suggest that I am suffering from schizophrenia (amnesia) and due to this illness, I am having persistent delusions (believing that something is true which is actually not true) and persistent hallucinations (hearing, smelling, seeing, touching or feeling things which are not there). It is wrong to suggest that since I am suffering from schizophrenia, I have wrongly named accused Subrat Das in the present case and incident was committed by some other person. It is wrong to suggest that I called the accused 03-04 times at the time of incident in order to seek his help from accused. It is wrong to suggest that since I am suffering from schizophrenia, I forgot the names of the actual assailants and only remembers accused Subrat Das as he had taken me to the hospital and, therefore, accused has been named in this case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
37. The stand of the accused is also reflected from his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein in response to question no.18, accused responded that PW8 Roshan Lal called him telephonically at the spot where he reached with his wife and saw PW8 who was already heavily drunk and severely injured. Accused himself was also drunk but little bit only.
38. Further, in response to question no.25, accused claimed to be falsely implicated by the injured Roshan Lal page no. 27 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 because he used to call his wife to which he used to object but he did not mend ways and would keep on calling her after getting drunk. On 15.04.2022, he received calls from Injured Roshan Lal asking for his help and after reaching at the spot with his wife, he saw him in injured condition and he along with his wife on his motorcycle immediately took him to the hospital.
39. Having gingerly analysed the stand of the accused, it is made out that the accused claimed to have reached the spot of the incident upon receiving a call from the injured PW8 and that he was the one who removed the injured to the hospital as reflected in his MLC Ex.PW1/A wherein the name 'Subrat' is mentioned in column of the name and address of the person accompanying the injured. However, this defence of the accused does not appear to be credible and convincing so as to junk the testimony of injured PW8 who has unequivocally narrated the sequence of events that transpired on the date of the incident i.e. 15/16.04.2022 for the following reasons:
Injured PW8 had received grievous stab injuries on his throat and his MLC Ex.PW1/A reveals that he was unable to speak, it is, thus, incredulous to assume that after having been stabbed in his throat by someone else, injured would have called the accused to the spot of the incident asking for his help. Had the injured been stabbed by some other person, natural response on his part must be to call his family members rather than the accused. Presence of the accused at the spot of the crime bolsters the testimony of the injured that it was the accused only who stabbed him on his throat with knife. Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:53:51 +0530 page no. 28 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Accused professed in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C that when he reached the spot, he found the injured to be in drunken condition whereas no such observation is reflected from his MLC Ex.PW1/A. On the contrary, accused himself avouched to be in drunken condition, which fact also stood established from the testimony of injured PW8 who specifically deposed that it appeared to him that accused was in drunken condition.
There is disparateness between the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C and the defence evidence produced by him in the form of testimony of his wife Ms. Pooja who was examined as DW1. Accused claimed that injured PW8 called him telephonically at the spot whereas his wife DW1 claimed that accused did not pick up the phone calls of the injured and it was she who had picked up the phone call of the injured. Accused claimed that he took the injured along with his wife on his motorcycle to the hospital whereas DW1 Ms. Pooja claimed that they went to the spot by walk and sought the help of a passer by who was going on a bike who along with her husband shifted the injured to the hospital. These contradictions between the statement of the accused and that of DW1 are too significant to ignore.
40. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the defence put forth on behalf of the accused appears to be sham and contrived. As noted above, it is unlikely that after the incident of stabbing in his throat, with the loss of blood, he would keep on contacting the accused and his wife and more so when page no. 29 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam NAVJEET Vihar SC no. 351/2022 BUDHIRAJ Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: 2025.05.20 15:53:55 +0530 the accused and the injured do not appear to be on cordial terms as in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C accused professed that injured Roshan Lal used to call his wife which was objected to by him and despite asking the injured to mend his ways, injured would keep on calling her after getting drunk. Furthermore, the defence put forth by the accused also leaves the scope of some unanswered questions as to when the injured was already stabbed on his throat, the phone used by him must have been immersed with his blood marks so when the accused and his wife had reached the spot and did they notice any blood marks on the phone of the injured, the identity of the passer by who was going on the bike and who along with accused shifted the injured to the hospital remains a mystery. Thus, given the slew of the circumstances noted above, the defence proffered on behalf of the accused does not enthuse the confidence of the court and deserves to be jettisoned.
41. I shall now deal with some of the contentions put forth on behalf of the accused. It is one of the contentions that one Madhu whose name has made inroads in the testimony of the injured has not been examined and since he was stated to be the root of the incident, his examination was inevitable for the case of the prosecution. I do not subscribe to this contention as it is not the case of the prosecution that Madhu was the only one who was the bone of the contention between the accused and the injured. The testimony of injured PW8 reveals that although accused Subrat abused Madhu telephonically on 15.04.2022 but when he was confronted on this issue by the injured, accused page no. 30 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:53:58 +0530 abused him also and then told him to meet him and talk it out. Testimony of the injured PW8 further reveals that eventually when he met with the accused out side the Royal Sweets Shop, Sangam Vihar, accused scuffled with him and then stabbed him on his throat. Thus, non examination of the said Madhu is not of much significance to the case of the prosecution.
42. Another contention on behalf of the accused is that it was the accused and his wife who took the injured to the hospital which fact goes contrary to the case of the prosecution as had the accused been the assailant, he would not have taken the injured to the hospital. At first blush, this argument is certainly meritorious and this circumstance was to be explained by the prosecution. Injured PW8 has also indicated in his cross examination that wife of the accused and the accused might have taken him to Jamia Hospital. To my mind, after the incident, the accused being drunk, some sense prevailed to him to save the life of the injured who was his colleague and, thus, this circumstance cannot absolve him of the crime.
43. It is also one of the arguments that parents of the victim have not been examined by the investigating officer nor they have been cited as witnesses. Again, as such, parents of the victim have no role to play and are not connected with the incident. Though, the charge sheet reveals that some inquiry was conducted from them, however, being parents of the injured, it was natural and normal for the investigating officer to have conducted inquiry from them and only in case some substantial page no. 31 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: BUDHIRAJ 2025.05.20 15:54:02 +0530 material could have been found from their inquiry, they would have been cited as witnesses, which may not be the case herein.
44. The next contention put forth on behalf of the accused is that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution, which again is a misconceived argument. It has been reiterated time and again in catena of judgments that there is no rule of law to seek corroboration from an independent witness in every case. Rather, the testimony of the injured stands on the higher pedestal and it is unlikely that the injured would falsely name someone and would let off the real culprit. In the instant case, the testimony of the injured is not found to be suffering from any substantive irregularities so as to look for corroboration from outside sources. It is also not to be lost sight that the time of the incident is at around midnight at which time the movement of public persons is expected to be thin. Thus, non examination of any independent witness in this case cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
45. Lastly, it was argued on behalf of the accused that admittedly, injured was unable to speak properly after the stabbing incident as a pipe was inserted in his throat and no certificate from doctor about the fitness of the victim to give statement was obtained by the IO. Certainly, this argument also carries some weight to it as once the doctor had declared the injured unfit for statement as reflected in the MLC Ex.PW1/A, it was the duty of the investigating officer to have obtained the fitness certificate from the concerned doctor before proceeding to page no. 32 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 record the statement of the injured, however, the advantage of this lapse cannot enure to the benefit of the accused in the obtained factual matrix of the case. PW10 SI Talib Khan has acknowledged in his testimony that soon after receiving information regarding the incident when he reached at Majidia Hospital, he found the injured in serious condition who was declared unfit for statement. But in the later part of his testimony, he explicated that on the same date i.e. 16.04.2022 in the evening time, he came to know that the operation of the injured was successful and accordingly he reached at Safdarjung Hospital where injured was declared fit for statement and thereafter he recorded the statement of the injured under section 161 Cr.P.C. In his cross examination also, he acknowledged that before recording of the statement of the witness, he did not obtain any certificate from the doctor regarding fitness of the injured to record his statement but he denied that injured did not give any statement and he recorded the same on his own. The charge sheet reflects that when the investigating officer visited the hospital in evening on 16.04.2022, though, the injured was unable to speak properly, but in faint and low voice, he gave his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C, which is not an impossible circumstance.
46. Having successfully proved the occurrence of the incident in question and involvement of the accused, let us see whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the specific charge under section 307 IPC. Before that, it is profitable to reproduce the findings of the Supreme Court in one of the case involving charge under section 307 IPC. In case titled 'State of page no. 33 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ Date: BUDHIRAJ 2025.05.20 15:54:09 +0530 Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harjeet Singh and Another', Criminal Appeal No.1190/2009 dated 19.02.2019, in relation to stabbing injury with sharp knife, it was observed as under:
"5.5 The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife, which is a dangerous weapon, near his vital organs, would ordinarily lead to the death of the victim. The weapon of offence was a 4 inch long knife which is a dangerous weapon. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 had assaulted the Complainant with the said knife, and inflicted multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back, and buttocks. The multiple blows inflicted by the Accused /Respondent No. 1 would prove the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause the death of the victim. Stabbing a person with a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances lead to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the meaning of Section 307.
5.6 Section 307 uses the term "hurt"
which has been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not "grievous hurt"
within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C.
If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307. This Court in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka,1 held that :
"...The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on non vital parts, that does not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC....... It is sufficient to justify a conviction page no. 34 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 under Section 307 if there is present 1 (2004) 9 SCC 27 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 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 Sections 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." (emphasis supplied) If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to be on a "vital part" of the body, merely causing 'hurt' is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C.2 This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana3 held that: "12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution 2 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors, (2013) 14 SCC 116 3 (2015) 11 SCC 366 has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness.
page no. 35 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 Digitally signed by NAVJEET NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20 15:54:15 +0530 Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc."
(emphasis supplied) This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v.
Kanha @ Omprakash4 held that:
"The above judgements of this Court lead us to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. 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 4 Criminal Appeal No. 1589/2018, decided on 04.02.2019. severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent."
(emphasis supplied) 5.7 In view of the abovementioned findings, it is evident that the ingredients of Section 307 have been made out, as the intention of the Accused /Respondent No. 1 can be ascertained clearly from his conduct, and the circumstances surrounding the offence."
page no. 36 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022 CONCLUSION
47. In line with the aforesaid, in the instant case, since the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that on the intervening night of 15/16.04.2022 at about 12:30am, accused Subrat Dass called the complainant in front of his house in Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and thereafter they went to Royal Sweets shop, Sangam Vihar where accused scuffled with the injured and slit his throat with knife thereby causing grievous hurt to him. The MLC Ex.PW1/A of the injured shows the throat injury approximately 4x2x1 inch lacerated wound with open edge over anterior aspect of neck just below the thyroid cartilage, with profound bleeding. Neck is a vital part of the body and thus, considering the nature of the weapon used and severity of the injury, ingredients of section 307 IPC have been fulfilled. Accused, thus, stands convicted for offence under section 307 IPC. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed
by NAVJEET
on 20.05.2025 NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ
BUDHIRAJ Date:
2025.05.20
(Navjeet Budhiraja)15:54:22 +0530
ASJ-02 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
20.05.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 37 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by NAVJEET BUDHIRAJ NAVJEET Date:
BUDHIRAJ 2025.05.20
15:54:27
+0530
(Navjeet Budhiraja)
ASJ-02 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
20.05.2025
page no. 37 of 37 State Vs. Subrat Das FIR no. 239/22 PS Sangam Vihar SC no. 351/2022