Delhi District Court
State vs . Mukesh Kumar on 3 January, 2019
SC/359/17
State Vs. Mukesh Kumar
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/359/17
CNRDLNE010102432016
State Versus Mukesh Kumar
S/o Mahender Paswan
R/o C426, Gali No.7,
Shri Ram Colony, Delhi
FIR No.529/17
PS Khajuri Khas
under Section 307 IPC
Date of institution of case : 07122017
Reserved for judgment on : 06122018
Date of passing of judgment : 03012019
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case filed on behalf of State whereby prosecution is seeking conviction of accused Mukesh Kumar, who had intentionally caused grievous hurt by giving knife blow on the neck of Latif Khan with such intention and knowledge that Latif Khan could FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 1 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar have died because of the injury caused to him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred as the "IPC").
2. I have heard both the sides and meticulously gone through the record of the case.
3. Learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays that accused may be convicted for the offence charged against him.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays for the acquittal of the accused.
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on 2308 2017 at about 12.15 pm at Mahender Atta Chakki, House No.C426, Gali No.7, Sri Ram Colony, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, accused Mukesh FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 2 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Kumar had intentionally caused grievous hurt by giving knife blow on the neck of Latif Khan with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that by that act, Latif Khan could have died because of the injury caused to him by the accused.
6. The detailed facts of the case shall be appreciated at the relevant stages of the judgment.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the sequence of events which are as under;
8. The present case has been committed for trial and the charge sheet was received by the Court on 07122017. Charge was framed against the accused on 07122017 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offence charged against him.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses.
10. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded on 30082018.
FIR No.529/17PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 3 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar
11. In his defence, one witness has been examined by the accused.
12. It is pointed out that the entire case shall be scrutinized and analyzed keeping an eye on the settled provisions of law and judicial precedents.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE OCCULAR EVIDENCE
13. Injured PW1 Latif has come in the witness box and has stated that he works as Ward Attendant at Sant Parmanand Hospital, Civil Line, Delhi. He has further stated that on 23082017 at about 1212.15 pm, he had gone to purchase flour from nearby flour shop located in Gali No.7, Shri Ram Colony. He has further stated that accused Mukesh Kumar was present in the shop. He has further stated that about 23 days back, he had given 15 Kg wheat for grinding to the accused and when he asked for his wheat, accused replied that he had already taken his flour. He has further stated that he had shown slip issued to him in this regard to the accused and they reasoned with FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 4 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar each other in this regard and accused started abusing him and he picked up a knife lying on the counter of the shop and gave him knife blow on the right side of his neck. He has further stated that blood started oozing out of his injury and some public persons gathered there. Somebody gave a call to PCR from his mobile phone. PCR reached at the spot and he was removed to a hospital situated at Zero Pushta, Shastri Park. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A.
14. In the cross examination, it has been elicited that when he went to bring his flour, only he and accused were present in the shop at about 12.10 pm. It has been further elicited that police did not seize his clothes as the same were washed by him. It has been further elicited that on hearing their altercation, public persons had gathered there and after receiving injury, he lied down near the next shop for about 1015 minutes. It has been further elicited that one Raju and his wife had taken him to hospital in an ambulance which came along with PCR Van. He has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly framed the accused and had obtained fabricated MLC. Few FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 5 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar suggestions in the form of defence were given to the witness which shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
15. PW2 Ashfaq has come in the witness box and has stated that on 23082017 at about 1212.15 pm, he was passing through Gali No.7, Shri Ram Colony, Khajuri Khas and saw a crowd gathered there. He has further stated that he saw accused Mukesh and Latif Bhai were quarreling with each other and accused Mukesh picked up a knife meant for cutting thread and gave a blow on the neck of Latif Bhai and then accused ran away from the spot. He has further stated that police reached the spot and he narrated the facts to the police.
16. In the cross examination, it has been elicited that he was going to his home from Jama Masjid side and the flour shop falls on the way to his home and 1012 persons were present near the flour shop when he reached there. It has been further elicited that after the injury, all the clothes of the injured were soaked with blood and length of the knife was about 4 inches. He has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the actual happening. Few suggestions in the form of FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 6 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar defence were given to the witness which shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
17. PW3 Najim has come in the witness box and has stated that he is a tailor by profession and on 23082017 at about 12 noon, he was passing through Gali No.7, Shri Ram Colony for going to market. He has further stated that he saw a quarrel was going on at a flour shop between Latif and accused Mukesh Kumar on the matter of flour. He has further stated that accused picked up a knife from the table and gave knife blow on the neck of Latif and blood started oozing out from the wound. He has further stated that police reached at the spot and accused went in his home which is in that very premises.
18. In the cross examination, it has been elicited that he is a resident of Gali No.6, Shri Ram Colony, Khajuri Khas and was passing through Gali No.7 when incident took place. It has been elicited that he does not remember exactly on which side of the neck knife blow was given by the accused however when the knife blow FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 7 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar was given, blood oozed out of the wound and clothes of the injured were soaked with blood and some blood also fell on the ground. It has been further elicited that injured is known to him being resident of the same locality. He has denied the suggestion that no incident whatsoever had been witnessed by him.
19. Few suggestions in the form of defence were given to the witness which shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED
20. As far as identity of the accused is concerned, PW1 Latif, PW2 Ashfaq and PW3 Najim in one voice stated that accused Mukesh had given knife blow on the neck of injured Latif. It is not a case where PW1, PW2 and PW3 do not know the accused. They are the resident of the same locality and know each other very well.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
21. PW9 Dr. Rajiv, SR Surgery, JPC Hospital has appeared in the witness box and has stated that he is working as SR (Surgery) at FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 8 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar JPC Hospital since February, 2017 and Dr. Rajeev was also working at the said hospital in the year 2017 as SR. He has further stated that the opinion given on the MLC No.11541 of injured Latif is in the handwriting of Dr. Rajeev and he can identify his handwriting and signatures in his official capacity as he had seen him writing and signing. He has further stated that Dr. Rajeev has left the hospital since long and his present whereabouts are not known to the hospital. He has further stated that the injuries opined by Dr. Rajeev is at point A of the MLC Ex.PW9/A bearing the signature of Dr. Rajeev at point A and as per his opinion, the nature of injury was grievous.
22. PW10 Dr. Kunal Kishore, Medical Officer, Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Delhi has appeared and has stated that on 23082017, he was posted as CMO in JPC Hospital and Dr. Danish was working in his supervision as Junior Resident. He has further stated that on that day, Dr. Danish examined patient vide MLC No.11541 under his supervision and prepared MLC of the injured. He has further stated that he is acquainted with writing and signing of Dr. FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 9 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Danish as he has worked under his supervision and he can identify the same. He has further stated that MLC Ex.PW9/A bears the signature of Dr. Danish at point B. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
23. In his defence, accused has examined his father Shri Mahender Paswan as DW1 and in his testimony before the Court, he has stated that on 23082017 at about 11.45 am, when he had gone to take food on first floor, one Latif came at his shop to take flour and at that time, his son Mukesh was present at the shop. He has further stated that he had come without any slip and when his son asked for slip, he replied that same has been lost. He has further stated that thereafter, his son Mukesh had checked his register and found Latif had already taken his flour and at that time, another customer Akhilesh was present at the shop. He has further stated that his son Mukesh had told Latif that he had already taken away his flour and his name has been cut in the register and thereafter, Latif started quarreling with his son and threatened him that he will face dire FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 10 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar consequences. He has further stated that his son rushed upstairs and informed him about the incident. He has further stated that he came down and also verified from the register and found that flour had already been taken away by Latif and his name was cut from the register. He has further stated that after about 510 minutes, Latif came back with 56 people and started quarreling with him and his son and started beating them. He has further stated that in the mean time, 2025 more people gathered there and they looted money from money chest/ galla and took away flour and wheat lying in the shop for grinding. He has further stated that they were saved by some influential people of the locality and forced to remain in the house till evening and in the evening, police had arrested his son Mukesh.
24. In the cross examination, he has stated that his register was torn off by Latif and his associates and they threw the same in the drain and they had also broken his mobile phone. He has denied the suggestion that he cooked up a false story in order to save his son. He has admitted that he was not present at the time when quarrel between FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 11 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Latif and his son took place. He has further stated that he does not know the names of 56 associates of Latif or 2025 people gathered at his shop. He has further stated that he does not know how much amount was taken away from his money chest. He has admitted that he did not lodge any complaint with the police with the regard to stealing of money from money chest or taking away of wheat and flour from his shop. He has stated that he did not go to any hospital for his treatment of his alleged injuries. He has stated that he does not know the names of influential people of the locality.
DEPOSITION OF OTHER FORMAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
25. Besides these witnesses, prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove
1. PW4 W.Ct. Santra DD entry no.57 Ex.PW4/A
2. PW5 ASI Chander Pal Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW5/A and FIR
Ex.PW5/B
3. PW6 Ct. Harender Personal Search Memo of accused Ex.PW6/A
Disclosure Statement of accused Ex.PW6/B
4. PW7 HC Ved Prakash PCR Form Ex.PW7/A
5. PW8 ASI Surender Singh Rukka Ex.PW8/A FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 12 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar
6. PW9 Dr. Rajiv, SR(Surgery), MLC of Latif Ex.PW9/A JPC Hospital CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
26. From the evidence, it is evinced that the entire incident sparked when PW1 Latif, who is the victim had gone to the flour shop of the accused to get back 15 kg of wheat which he had left at the shop of the accused for grinding about 23 days back. When PW1 Latif demanded his grinded flour, accused told him that he had already taken his flour to which PW1 had shown slip in this regard to the accused. On this some altercation ensued between them. Accused then started abusing PW1 and picked up a knife lying on the counter of the shop and gave him a knife blow on the right side of his neck. He started bleeding. In the meantime, public had also gathered there. Somebody gave a call to PCR and PCR van reached at the spot. PW1 Latif was removed to a government hospital where he remained hospitalized for about 34 hours. His statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the police.
FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 13 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar
27. In the cross examination, it has been elicited that at the time of collection of the flour only accused and PW1 were alone at about 12.10 pm. It is also elicited that police did not seize his clothes as the same were washed by him and on hearing their altercation, public persons had also gathered there. It is further elicited that one Raju along with his wife had taken him to hospital in an ambulance which came along with PCR van. He has denied the suggestion that accused Mukesh Kumar has been wrongly framed in the case.
28. In the public which had gathered there, eye witnesses Ashfaq and Najim were also present there. Ashfaq was examined as PW2 and Najim was examined as PW3.
29. PW2 Ashfaq in his testimony before the Court has stated that he saw accused Mukesh Kumar and Latif Bhai were quarreling with each other and accused Mukesh picked up a knife meant for cutting thread (sutli) and gave blow on the neck of Latif Bhai and then, accused ran away from the spot. He has further stated that police reached at the spot and Latif was taken to hospital. FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 14 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar
30. In the cross examination, it has been elicited that injured Latif was known to him as he was residing there on rent in gali no.5 near to his house. It is further elicited that he was at a distance of about 25 feet from the place where incident happened and 34 persons were ahead of him when he had seen the incident. It is further elicited that those persons were larger in height than him and the length of the knife was about 4 inches.
31. PW3 Najim has also spoken on the same lines and has stated that on 23082017 at about 12 noon, he was passing through Gali no.7, CBlock, Shri Ram Colony for going to market and he saw a quarrel was going on between accused Mukesh Kumar and Latif at a flour shop on the matter of flour. He has further stated that he saw that accused picked up a knife from the table and gave knife blow on the neck of Latif and blood started oozing out from the wound.
32. In the cross examination, it has been elicited that he does not remember exactly on which side of the neck the alleged knife blow was given by the accused. It is further elicited that when the FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 15 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar knife blow was given the blood rushed out of the wound and all the clothes of the injured were smeared with blood and some blood also fell on the ground. It is further elicited that when he reached at the spot, there was a crowd of about 25 persons present there and the incident had happened inside the shop. It is further elicited that police had reached there in about 1015 minutes after giving the call.
33. Most importantly all the three star witnesses have clearly narrated the incident being eye witnesses. They have spoken in one voice that accused Mukesh Kumar had given one knife blow on the neck of PW1 Latif and blood started to ooze out from the injured place.
34. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination from these witnesses to discredit or denounce their testimonies in any manner. However, there are some minor contradictions but the same are not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution in any manner.
35. It has remained unanswered that when the clothes were smeared with blood then why they were not seized by the police. At FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 16 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar the same time, the weapon of offence i.e. knife which is a crucial piece of evidence was neither recovered nor the same was recovered at the instance of accused.
36. All the star witnesses have clearly identified the accused in the dock as the same person, who had perpetrated the crime. Moreover, they were known to the accused as the accused was having a flour shop in the locality and almost all the eye witnesses were from the same locality.
37. PW8 ASI Surender Singh along with PW6 Ct. Harender, who are the police witnesses have supported and corroborated the case of the prosecution in as much as they have stated that IO had collected the MLC of Latif and got registered a case. Site plan was prepared at the instance of injured Latif which is Ex.PW1/B and accused Mukesh Kumar present in the Court was arrested at the instance of complainant and the arrest memo of accused Mukesh Kumar is Ex.PW1/C. IO has clearly stated that FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 17 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar nothing could be recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Mukesh Kumar Ex.PW6/B.
38. In the cross examination of PW8 ASI Surender Singh, it has been elicited that he remained in the hospital for about one hour forty five minutes and he left the hospital along with complainant and reached at the spot. In the cross examination, it has been further elicited that he did not notice blood smeared clothes at the place of incident and he had requisitioned blood stained clothes of the injured but he informed that he had put handkerchief on the injury and the same has been thrown by him. He had asked the clothes on the day when incident had happened.
39. The injury has been proved by PW9 Dr. Rajiv, SR Surgery, JPC Hospital, who had proved the nature of injury and MLC No.11541 as Ex.PW9/A. The nature of injury was opined as grievous.
40. PW10 Dr. Kunal Kishore, Medical Officer, JPC Hospital, Delhi has stated that Dr. Danish had prepared the MLC Ex.PW9/A under his supervision and he has proved the signatures of Dr. Danish FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 18 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar at point B of MLC Ex.PW9/A as he is acquainted with handwriting and signatures of Dr. Danish.
41. On the basis of judicial precedents, it is culled out that the intention required to bring a case within the meaning of Section 307 of IPC, some relevant factors are important which are as follows;
(i) nature/ type of weapon used. (ii) the place and part of body where injuries were inflicted. (iii) nature of injuries caused.
(iv) opportunity available to the accused.
(v) with what force the weapon of offence was used.
(vi) number of blows given.
42. In the present case, the crucial factors in the backdrop that had led to inflicting the injury on the neck of the victim are of prime importance in gauging the real intention of the accused. It has not come on record that there was any kind of enmity or ill will between the accused and the victim prior to the incident. The victim comes to the spot for collecting his flour whereas accused says that he FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 19 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar had already taken his flour after grinding. It is also important to note that accused gives a single blow resulting 0.5 X 1.0 cm lacerated wound on the right side neck of the victim which as per opinion of the doctor was found to be grievous in nature.
43. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the matter and especially considering the facts that only single blow was given on the neck of the victim and victim remained hospitalized only for about 23 hours and immediately after discharge, he goes with the IO at the spot and at his instance, site plan was prepared which has also come in the statement of PW8 ASI Surender Singh are all points to the inference that the nature of injury was not of a highest degree of seriousness. Furthermore, he also gets accused Mukesh Kumar arrested in his presence shows that there was no serious effect on the person of the victim of the injury caused to him. It transpires that the action has taken place at the spur of the moment and there was no serious cause of the quarrel.
44. All these factors cumulatively show that accused FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 20 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Mukesh Kumar does not have the requisite mensrea and actusreus necessary for the purposes of attracting Section 307 IPC.
45. In the judgment titled as Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC 843, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to obverse as under;
"9. It is true that the witnesses say that the appellant used a chhura. It is also true, that the injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body but the fact remains that no vital organ of the body was injured thereby. Again, we do not know how big the chhura was and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was sufficiently for to penetrate the abdomen deep enough to cause an injury to a vital organ which would in the ordinary course of nature be fatal. The chhura could not be recovered but the prosecution should at least have elicited from the witnesses particulars about its size. We are, therefore, unable to say with anything near certainty that the appellant had such intention or knowledge. Incidentally we may point out that Shankar Prasad does not say that after he released the wrist FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 21 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar of Sushil the appellant inflicted or even tried to inflict any further injury on him.
10. In this state of the evidence we must hold that the prosecution has not established that the offence committed by the appellant falls squarely under Section 307 IPC. In our opinion, it amounts only to an offence under Section 324 IPC."
46. In the present case, the intention of the accused can be carefully viewed from the fact that on minor altercation, the accused lost his temper and took out a knife which was of about 4 inches in length and gave single blow on the right side neck of the injured which caused a 0.5 X 1.0 cm lacerated wound. Though, it is on the vital part of the body and the injury was opined as grievous yet it surely falls short of the intention to commit murder of the injured. From the record, it is reflected that there is no previous enmity of the accused with the injured. Some hot words may have exchanged between the two resulting into such an incident. This takes us to Section 326 IPC. The essential ingredients of which are as follows; FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 22 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar (1) Accused must commit an act with the knowledge that thereby he was likely to cause hurt or grievous hurt to the victim Keshub Mahindra v. State of M.P. 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104. (2) Accused caused grievous hurt;
(3) He caused it voluntarily;
(4) He caused it by any of the following means i.e.
(a) by any instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting;
(b) by any instrument, if used as a weapon of offence likely to
cause death;
(c) by fire or heated substance;
(d) by poisonous or corrosive substance;
(e) by explosive substance;
(f) by any substance deleterious to the human body to inhale
or swallow;
(g) by means of any animal.
47. Though, the alleged knife has not been recovered at the instance of accused yet it is believable that the accused must have FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 23 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar used some sharp edged instrument due to which lacerated wound was caused on the neck of the injured. The medical evidence clearly shows that the nature of injury as opined by the doctor is grievous. The IO has joined the dots and he has supported and corroborated the case of the prosecution in all its material particulars. Therefore, the present case clearly falls within the parameters of Section 326 IPC.
48. DW1 Shri Mahender Paswan, father of the accused had come in the witness box and he narrated facts to the extent that Latif had come to ask for his flour without any slip and accused checked the entry in the register wherein it was found that Latif had already taken the flour and his name has been cut in the register. Shri Mahender Paswan has also confirmed the entry in the register. After about 510 minutes, complainant came back with 56 persons and started quarreling with them and 2025 people also gathered there and they started beating them. They also looted the shop and he also suffered injuries.
49. The crux of his statement is that according to him, the FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 24 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar entire incident was manipulated by the complainant so that they could not make a compliant against him because accused and his father had also sustained injuries and their cash and other belongings were looted by the complainant and his accomplices.
50. The statement and the defence made on behalf of accused is without any legs to stand for the simple reason that in the cross examination, DW1 has admitted that they had neither called the police at 100 number nor lodged any complaint with the police and he did not go to the police station with the intention to lodge any kind of complaint against complainant Latif and his associates. Moreover, he has also admitted that he was not present at the place and spot where alleged incident ensued between his son and accused. It is also strange to know that he also does not know the names of any of the persons, who had come along with Latif. He also does not know how much amount those persons had allegedly taken away from his money box and he also did not get lodged any kind of complaint with the police. He did not go to the hospital for treatment of his alleged FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 25 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar injuries as well. It appears that the entire story twisted by DW1 is made up with a view to save his son. There appears to be no figment of truth in his entire statement and he is only making an effort to save his son.
51. The defence and the story put up in his testimony is not at all liable to be believed. Almost same defence is taken by the accused himself which is for the reasons above is unworthy of any credence.
52. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused has stressed that since no clothes of the complainant were seized and the knife was also not recovered, this itself weakens the case of the prosecution.
53. There is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for accused for the simple reason that this in itself would not wipe out the fact that grievous injuries were caused on the neck of the complainant by the accused with the help of some sharp edged instrument having requisite intention and knowledge that it may have disastrous effect on the victim.
FIR No.529/17PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 26 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar
54. The accused either by way of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses or by way of raising the defence has completely failed to discredit, denounce, demolish the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever.
55. The prosecution has given a clear account of events and has proved its case within the ambit of provisions of Section 326 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against accused Mukesh Kumar.
CONCLUSION
56. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of complainant Latif which is duly supported and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the only irresistible conclusion points out a guilt towards accused Mukesh Kumar.
57. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Mukesh Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 27 /28 under Section 307 IPC SC/359/17 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar
58. Accused Mukesh Kumar is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed ON 03rd JANUARY, 2019 by DEEPAK JAGOTRA DEEPAK Location: KARKARDOOMA JAGOTRA COURTS, DELHI Date: 2019.01.03 16:03:50 +0530 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.529/17 PS Khajuri Khas Page No. 28 /28 under Section 307 IPC