Delhi District Court
State vs Jagdish Gera @ Goldi on 13 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
Jagdish Gera & ANR. FIR No.1275/14
Police Station: Tilak Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No.57254/16
2. CNR no. DLWT01-001938-2015
3. Date of Institution 09.01.2015
4. Date of Commission of 24.10.2014 offence
5. Name of the accused 1. Jagdish Gera @ Goldi S/o Sh. Narender Gera R/o WZ-1/1A, Plot no.8, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi
2. Ratandeep Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Narender Singh R/o WZ-H23, Sant Nagar Extension, Tilak Nagar, Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 307/34 IPC Section 323/34 IPC & 174A IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 20.09.2025 judgment POOJA TALWAR
9. Final order Conviction Digitally signed by 10 Date of such judgment 13.10.2025 POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:04:42 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 1 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that complainant Ramandeep gave a complaint on 24.10.2014 stating that at about 8 pm he alongwith his friend Gagandeep went to Oberoi Shop Tilak Nagar for having dinner. Owner of Oberoi Chicken shop informed Gagandeep about pending dues of Goldi, who was having dinner at the adjacent shop. When Gagandeep went to confront accused Goldi he started abusing him and he alongwith his 2-3 friends gave fist and leg blows to him. Thereafter accused Goldi had a knife and he inflicted knife injuries on Gagandeep. When he raised an alarm Goldi alongwith his friends fled from the spot.
2. On the basis of complaint, FIR under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons. On 25.11.2014 accused Jagdish @ Goldi was arrested. At his instance weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered. Accused Ratandeep was declared Proclaimed Offender and was apprehended on 09.02.2017.
Charge
3. Charge was framed against accused Jagdish Gera @ Goldi and Ratandeep Singh under Section 307/34 IPC & 323/34 IPC vide order dated 13.02.2015.
POOJA
4. Charge was framed against accused Ratandeep TALWAR Singh under Section 307/34 IPC & 323/34 IPC & 174A IPC vide Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 order dated 25.11.2017. 15:04:53 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 2 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 Prosecution evidence
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined eighteen witnesses as under :-
Material Witnesses:
(i) PW1: Gagandeep Singh deposed in his testimony that:
"I am unemployed. On 23.10.2014, I alongwith my friend Ramandeep Singh went to Oberoi Hotel, near Saat Manjila Mandir, Tilak Nagar, Delhi to eat Chicken. We went there at about 8 PM in Car of my friend no.DL-3CAB-3765. We took dinner in the abovesaid hotel. The accused Jagdish Goldi was also taking dinner there. His friend Ratandeep Singh was also present. When we were about to leave from there, then Amandeep, owner of the Oberoi Hotel told me that the accused Jagdish @ Goldi did not pay money against the food, he ate from his hotel. On that I asked the accused Goldi as to why he is not paying money to Amandeep. On that, accused Goldi become angry and he asked me that who am I to ask him to pay money. The accused started abusing me. My friend Ramandeep intervened the matter and we were separated. I told Ramandeep about my going to Urinal and Ramandeep told me that he is coming after me, after paying the money for the dinner we had. I went on the backside of Oberoi Hotel to ease myself from the nature of call, in the meanwhile, Goldi alongwith his companion namely Ratandeep Singh followed me and thereafter Goldi inflicted knife injuries to me from my back and when I turned towards him, then he inflicted knife injuries on my face, hands, chest and abdomen. The accused Ratandeep Singh caught hold POOJA me during the incident and he also gave me beatings with fist and TALWAR legs. Ratandeep Singh was also having some object like brick in Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 3 of 50 15:05:01 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 his hand and he gave me injuries with that object like brick. As a result of injuries caused to me by the accused persons, blood started coming out from my injuries and I fell down. In the meanwhile, some nearby persons made hue and cry. My friend Ramandeep and other persons came to rescue me and after seeing the public persons, the accused Jagdish @ Goldi and his companion Ratandeep managed to escape on his Scooty. As my condition become critical due to stab injuries, therefore, my friend immediately took me to Kukreja hospital in his Car, but the staff of Kukreja hospital did not admit me at their hospital on the pretext of critical case. Thereafter, my friend took me to Khetarpal Hospital, Bali Nagar, Delhi and got me admitted there.
The accused Ratandeep was wearing check shirt while accused Jagdish @ Goldi was wearing blue colour T.Shirt on which there was print of skull. At the time of incident of stabbing, accused Jagdish @ Goldi was saying that "Saale tu logo ka jyada hi himayati banta hai aur aaj tera kaam tamsam kar deta hu".
I can identify both the accused persons namely Jagdish @ Goldi and Ratandeep Singh after seeing them. Today accused Jagdish @ Goldi is present before the court. (The witness has correctly pointed out and identified the accused Jagdish @ Goldi). The other accused Rarandeep Singh is not present before the court today, but I can identify him on seeing him. IO recorded my statement. In the year 2014 I was unemployed. On 24.10.2014, I alongwith my friend Ramandeep Singh went to Oberoi Hotel near 7 Manzila Mandir, Tilak Nagar, Delhi to eat chicken. We went there at about 8:00 PM in my car bearing POOJA registration No.DL-3CAB-3765. The owner of aforesaid hotel TALWAR was Amandeep Singh. I and my friend Ramandeep Singh took Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:05:11 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 4 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 dinner in the aforesaid hotel. I saw accused Jagdish @ Goldi and his friend co-accused Ratandeep Singh were also taking dinner in the aforesaid same hotel. In between my friend Amandeep, the owner of Oberoi Hotel told me that accused Jagdish @Goldi and co-accused Ratandeep Singh did not pay money against the food, they eat from his hotel. On that I asked accused Jagdish @ Goldi as to why he is not paying money to Amandeep. On that accused Goldi became angry and he started abusing me "maa-behan ki galiyan dene laga". Accused Rantandeep Singh and Goldi also starting beating me. My friend Ramandeep intervened the matter and we were separated. Thereafter, I told Ramandeep about my going to urinal and Ramandeep told me that he is coming after paying the money for the dinner we had I went on the back side of Oberoi Hotel to ease myself from the nature of call, in the meanwhile accused Goldi alongwith co-accused Ratandeep Singh and thereafter accused Goldi inflicted knife injuries to me on my back side and when I turned towards him, then he inflicted knife injuries on my abdomen, chest, hands, on my head and also on my face. Accused Ratandeep also gave beatings to me with fists and legs. Accused Ratandeep was also having some object like brick in his hand and he gave me injuries with brick like object. As a result of aforesaid injuries caused to me, blood started oozing out from my injuries and I fell down. Thereafter, my friend Ramandeep reached at the aforesaid spot and he made hue and cry and thereafter both accused Jagdish @ Goldi and Ratandeep managed to escape from the spot on scooty. My friend Ramandeep Singh immediately shifted me to Khetrapal Hospital, POOJA where I was medically examined and I got admitted there. TALWAR On the next date i.e. 25.10.2014 at about 10:00 AM I Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR regained my consciousness where doctor informed me about my Date: 2025.10.13 15:05:25 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 5 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 critical condition. Police official were also present there, however, I was not in condition to give my statement at that time. My statement was recorded in afternoon on 25.10.2014 by the Investigating Officer.
At the time of incident accused Jagdish Goldi was wearing blue colour T-shirt on which there was print of skull and accused Ratandeep was wearing check shirt. Accused Jagdish Goldi and Ratandeep are present in the court today (the witness has correctly pointed out and identified both accused persons).
I can identify my clothes, which I was wearing at the time of incident.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed pullanda i.e. pullanda No.3, sealed with the seal of "Dr. SS FSL DELHI and also bearing particulars of the present case. The seal is broken and one shirt, paint and one underwear are taken out and shown to the witness, who correctly identify the same, which he was wearing at the time of incident. The aforesaid shirt, paint and underwear are Ex.P-1 (colly.).
I can also identify the clothes of accused Jagdish Gera @ Goldi which he was wearing at the time of incident, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed pullanda te. pullanda No.5, sealed with the seal of "Dr. SS FSL DELHI"
and also bearing particulars of the present case. The seal is broken and one T-shirt and paint are taken out and shown to the POOJA witness, who correctly identify the same, which accused Jagdish TALWAR Gera @ Goldi was wearing at the time of incident. The aforesaid Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR T-shirt and paint are Ex.P-2 (colly.). Date: 2025.10.13 15:05:54 +0530 I can also identify the scooty upon which both accused had fled away from the spot.
SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 6 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 At this stage, three photographs of scooty bearing registration No DL-10SG-6864 are shown to the witness from judicial file, witness has correctly identified the same, upon which both accused had fled away from the spot after the aforesaid incident. The aforesaid photographs are Ex.P-3 (colly.).
(ii) PW2:Ramandeep Singh deposed in his testimony that:
"I am working in Hundai Company. On 24.10.2014, I alongwith my friend Gagandeep Singh at about 8:00 PM or 08:30 PM went to Oberoi Shop, near Chhoti Sabzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar, to eat Chicken. We went there in Car bearing no. DL-3CAB-3765. We took dinner. The accused Goldi who is present in the court today (the witness has correctly pointed out and identifies accused Jagdish @ Goldi) was taking dinner in the adjoining shop to the Oberoi Chicken shop. The owner of Oberoi Chicken shop namely Amandeep Singh told to my friend Gagandeep that the Goldi (i.e.accused) did not give him previous payments of the food he had, on that my friend Gagandeep asked the accused Goldi as to why he had not paid money to the shopkeeper. On that accused Goldi become angry and he started arguing and abusing. I intervened and get them separated. I went to pay the expenses of chicken we had, while Gagandeep went outside. After paying money, when I came out, I heard noise and I rushed towards the direction from where the noise was coming. Amandeep also followed me with other persons. I saw crowd and 3-4 boys were quarreling each other. Two boys fled on Scooty towards Tilak Nagar, 1 do not know what happened to remaining POOJA two I saw that my friend Gagandeep Singh was smeared with TALWAR blood and he was standing by the side of Tempo type vehicle and Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR he was holding his wounds with his other hand. I rushed back to Date: 2025.10.13 15:06:07 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 7 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 Oberoi Chicken shop to take the Car and I immediately took my friend Gagandeep to Khetarpal hospital in the Car and got him admitted there. I do not know who caused injuries to Gagandeep. I cannot identify those 3-4 boys. I do not know if accused Goldi was present near the spot where my friend Gagandeep was in injured condition. (vol. 1 ran back to take my Car).
The hospital gave information to the police and police officials of PS Tilak Nagar reached at Khetarpal hospital and recorded my statement which is Ex.PW-2/A, which bears my signatures at point A. I had taken the police to the place of incident and shown the spot. The site plan Ex.PW-2/B bears my signatures at point A. I had also shown the Auto on which blood of Gagandeep was present and the police get the same photographed and blood samples and other samples were also lifted by the police from the spot. I was relieved thereafter.
The seizure memo of Earth Control and seizure memo of blood stains with earth control are Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/D, both bear my signatures at point A. I have nothing else to say.
At this stage, Id. Addl. P.P. request to cross-examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement Heard. Request is allowed.
XXXXX by Ld. AddL PPfor the State.
It is correct that after recording the statement Ex.PW-2/A, contents thereof were readout to me. It is correct that Ex.PW-2/A was recorded by the police on my dictation and only after hearing the contents and after going through the contents, I put my signatures over it at point A. It is correct that 1 had told to the POOJA TALWAR IO in my statement that when I went to pay the bill and when my Digitally signed friend Gagandeep went to outside, thereafter, Goldi and his 2-3 by POOJA TALWAR friends went after Gagandeep. It is correct that I have stated to Date: 2025.10.13 15:06:13 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 8 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 the IO in my statement that when I came out from of the shop after paying the bill, I saw that Goldi and his friends had surrounded Gagandeep and they were beating him and Goldi was having a knife in his hand and he was saying "Saale tu logo ka jyada hi himayati banta hai aur aaj mai tera kaam tamaam kar dunga" and thereafter, Goldi started giving knife blows frequently (tabadtor) to Gagandeep and his friends gave leg and fist blows and I raised alarm "pakdo-pakdo" and thereafter, Goldi and his friends ran away towards Tilak Nagar market. It is correct that I had told the IO in my statement that Goldi and his friends inflicted knife injuries to my friend Gagandeep with the intention to kill him.
Question- As you have admitted the above mentioned facts to have been recorded by the IO on your dictation and signing Ex.PW-2/A after going through the contents, why you have suppressed these facts during your examination-in-chief?
Ans- I cannot assign any reason.
Question- Which of your above deposition is correct as you have deposed two different facts of the incident of stabbing?
Ans. My statement which I have deposed in my examination-in-Chief is correct and I did not see knife in the hand of the accused.
It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused, therefore, I am deposing in favour of the accused Goldi that I did not see knife in his hand. It is wrong to suggest that deliberately, I am suppressing the true facts in order to save the accused and therefore, I have changed my version frequently. It is wrong to suggest that the contents as read over to me during POOJA my cross examination regarding the fact of stabbing my friend TALWAR Gagandeep by the accused Goldi is correct or that I have Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 9 of 50 15:06:22 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 improved my deposition while deposing that "I did not see any knife in the hand of the Goldi" is an deliberate attempt on my part to save the accused Goldi".
"I was earlier working in Hundai Company, now I am working in Toyota. I do not remember the date of incident, it was on the next day after Diwali in the year 2014. A quarrel had taken place between Jagdish and Gagan Deep. On the date of incident at about 7-8 p.m.. I was in small Subzi Mandi. Tilak Nagar along with my friend Gagan Deep Singh. We were eating Chicken from the shop of person namely Aman. We had gone there in Accent Car. I do not remember the registration number of the Car. Quarrel ensued between Gagan and Jagdish Chander I cannot tell the reason for the quarrel.
Accused Jagdish Chander is present in the Court today (correctly identified).
I intervened and stopped the quarrel, Gagan left from there to urinate. All of sudden, loud noises started coming from the near by turn, all the people rush towards that side. I saw that Gagan was bleeding I immediately rush to get my Car and took him to Kheterpal hospital. Gagan Deep had suffered injury in his abdomen. I had gone to arrange blood as per the advise of the Doctor. When I returned, I noticed police outside Kheterpal Hospital. Police took me again to the place of incident. Police had clicked photographs at the spot. I was taken to police station. I was enquired about the incident. I narrated the matter relating to the quarrel which took place between Gagan Deep and Jagdish. Police had recorded my statement which is already Ex. POOJA PW2/A bearing my signature at point A. After recording of my TALWAR statement. I had gone to my home. I have nothing else to so. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR At this stage, Sh. B. B. Bhasin. Ld. Addl. PP for the State Date: 2025.10.13 15:06:32 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 10 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 seeks permission to cross-examine the witness under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act as the witness is resiling from his previous statement.
Heard Allowed.
I do not recollect despite suggestion that the incident took place on 24.10.2014. It is correct that it took place at about 8- 8.30 p.m. It is correct that we were taking dinner (chicken) in Oberio Chicken Shop. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. It is correct that Aman Deep was the owner of said chicken shop. It is correct that Aman Deep had claimed from accused Jagdish his previous payments towards the meals he had taken and Gagan Deep had asked Jagdish, why he was not making the payment to Aman Deep. It is correct that this was the reason for the quarrel which took place between Jagdish and Gagan Deep. It is wrong to suggest that while I was making the payment, Gagan Deep had gone outside the shop was followed by accused by Jagdish along with his 2-3 friends.
(Confronted with portion A to Al on the statement recorded in the Court on 13.05.2015, where it is so recorded). (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the accused Jagdish on the mode of confrontation). Due to passage of time, I might have for what the facts.
It is correct that when I rushed in the direction from where the noise was coming I saw that 3-4 boys were quarreling with Gagan Deep. It is wrong to suggest that my statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded in Kheterpal Hospital.
(Confronted with portion B to B1 on the statement POOJA recorded in the Court on 13.05.2015, where it is so recorded).
TALWAR
Digitally signed by
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for the accused Jagdish on the mode POOJA TALWAR
Date: 2025.10.13
of confrontation). 15:06:51 +0530
SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 11 of 50
FIR no.1275/14
I do not remember whether I had seen accused Jagdish along with his friends surrounding Gagan Deep and giving him knife blows while saying "saale tu logo ka jyada himayati banta hai aur aaj mei tera kaam tamam kar dunga".
(Confronted with portion C to Cl on the statement recorded in the Court on 13.05.2015, where it is so recorded). objected to by Ld. Counsel for the accused Jagdish on the mode of confrontation). (Also confronted with Portion X to X1 on Ex.PW2/A where it is recorded).
It is correct that I had raised alarm "Pakdo Pakdo" and accused along with his friends had fled on as Scooty.
I do not remember whether the boys who were accompanying Jagdish had beaten Gagan Deep with kick and fist blows.(Confronted with portion Y to YI on Ex.PW2/A, where it is so recorded).
At this stage. Ld. Addl. PP has pointed out towards accused Ratan Deep. present in the Court today and asked the witness that he was along with accused Jagdish and had also given injuries to Gagan Deep.
I do not remember that whether he was with Jagdish or not. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely or that I am deliberately not identified accused Ratan Deep as one of the assailant. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately and with ulterior motives resiling from my previous statement. It is wrong to suggest that I am trying to shield accused persons from conviction. It is correct that Ex. PW2/A was recorded on my POOJA narration and I had signed after going through its contents". TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR
(iii) PW3: Amandeep Singh deposed in his testimony that: Date: 2025.10.13 15:07:07 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 12 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 "I am running a Chicken shop, situated at Chhotti Sabzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. My cousin brother Amarjeet was also used to help me in the shop. On 24.10.2014, at about 08:30 or 09:00 PM, I was present at my Chicken shop. Gagandeep and Ramandeep, who were known to me, came to my chicken shop alongwith their friends. They took Chicken and enjoyed the same. They were under the influence of liquor. After sometime, Gagandeep went outside near parting area, probably to relieve himself. Thereafter he came in angry mode. One Jagdish @ Goldi was present nearby my shop and was consuming chicken on the other table. Gagandeep and Goldi reasoned with each other. They were threatening each other. They were pacified by their friends and thereafter, Gagandeep and party went out in the parking area. After sometime, Ramandeep came to my shop and informed that Gagandeep had sustained injury. He took his car. I remained present at my shop".
"I was working at Oberoi Chicken Corner, Chhotti Sabji Mandi, Tilak Nagar, Delhi-18 in the year 2014. Mr. Amarjeet Singh was the owner of the aforesaid chicken corner.
On 24.10.2014 at about 8:30-9:00 PM I was present at our aforesaid chicken shop. Gagandeep and Ramandeep, who were known to me as a customer. They took chicken and enjoyed the same. One Jagdish @ Goldi was also present nearby shop and was also having chicken on the other table. After sometime Gagandeep went outside near parking area, probably to relieve himself. Thereafter, he came in angry mode. Gagandeep and Goldi reasoned with each other and thereafter, Gagandeep and POOJA other party went outside in the parking area. After sometime, TALWAR Ramandeep came to my shop and informed me that Gagandeep Digitally signed sustained injuries. He took his car. I remained present at my by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 13 of 50 15:07:32 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 shop. IO recorded my statement in this regard.
Accused Jagdish Gera @ Goldi is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). I do not remember anything else.
At this stage, learned Additional PP for the state requests to cross examine the witness, as witness is not disclosing complete facts of the present case.
Heard. Request allowed.
XXX by learned Additional PP for the State. At this stage, statement dated 26.11.2014 (statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C.) is shown to the witness and after going through the same, witness has denied to give such statement to the Investigating Officer. The statement is marked as Mark PW3/A. It is correct that accused Jagdish Gera @ Goldi used to come at my aforesaid shop for taking meal/chicken. It is wrong to suggest that our Rs.1,380/- were due on accused Jagdish Gera @ Goldi against the meal / chicken, which he had taken from our shop. Confronted with statement Mark PW3/A from point A to A, where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated to Gagandeep Singh that accused Goldi was not paying the due amount, upon which Gagandeep asked accused Goldi that "tu is dukandaar ke paise kyu nehi de raha hai" upon which accused Goldi became angry and started abusing Gagandeep "maa-behan kee gali dene laga". Confronted with Mark PW 3/A from point B to B, where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith Ramandeep pacify the matter between accused Goldi POOJA TALWAR and victim Gagandeep. Confronted with Mark PW3/A from Digitally signed point C to C. where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 am deliberately not disclosing the complete facts of the present 15:07:49 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 14 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 case, as I have been won over by the accused. It is wrong to suggest that my statement Mark PW3/A was recorded by IO and that was my true statement. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately suppressing the complete facts of the present case, which I had disclosed to the Investigating Officer".
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW7: Dr. Anil Khetarpal deposed that on 24.10.2014, at about 10:00 pm, one Gagandeep Singh (injured) was brought in the hospital by Ramandeep Singh with the alleged history of assault.
Patient was conscious, oriented and was responding to verbal commands. On local examination, he found injuries upon his person as under :-
1. Large CLW 6.5x0.5 cm over the left side of face infrazygomatic region with bleed.
2. Incised would over left pinna.
3. Large incised would on the posterior aspect 7cm x 0.05 cm. With muscle exposed with bleed over forearm.
4. CLW post auricular region on the left side 5 x 0.5 cm.
5. Large incised would infra-mammary region obliquely placed cm x0.5 cm with bleed.
6. Large CLW over right costal region to epigastrium region 10cm x 1 cm with active bleed.
7. Three CLWs 3.5 x 3.5 cm one above each other left lumber region.
8. CLW 4cm x 0.5 right lumber region
9. CLW right lower abdomen just above the inguinal region 3x0.5 cm. POOJA TALWAR He prepared the MLC of the patient, which is Digitally signed already Ex.P/A bearing his signatures at point A. Injuries no. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 15 of 50 15:07:58 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 1,4,6,7,8, and 9 were blunt and injuries no. 2,3, and 5 were sharp in nature. In his opinion regarding the nature of injury is at portion X to X on the MLC Ex.PW7/A. The patient became fit for statement on 25.10.2014 at 09:00 am and his opinion in this regard is at portion Y to Y bearing his signatures at point B. MLC Ex.PW7/A of the patient was prepared at about 08:00 AM on 25.10.2014 and the same has been mentioned at portion Z to Z on the MLC Ex.PW7/A. In his opinion, the cumulative effect of all the injuries was dangerous to life and the same is at portion Z1 to Z1, bearing his signatures at point C. He gave this opinion on 04.11.2014. The patient was discharged from the hospital on 31.10.2014 at about 0:30 pm vide discharge summary Ex.PW7/B bearing his signatures at point A. At the time of examination of the said patient, he seized his wearing clothes and kept in a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of K.H. On the pullanda, name of patient Gagandeep Singh, aged 29 years, MLC No.6588/14 were also written. He handed over the aforesaid sealed pullanda alongwith one sample seal of K.H. to the investigating officer, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point B. Investigating officer also recorded his statement in this regard. On 04.11.2014, one sealed packet sealed with the seal of AK was produced before him and on opening it was found containing a knife and on examination of the said weapon. He was of the opinion that the injuries which were sharp in nature as mentioned above, could have been inflicted by the said weapon which was produced before him. His opinion in this regard is POOJA Ex.PW7/C, bearing his signatures at point A. However, he TALWAR further opined that ballistic report was a better option to decide Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR the same. He identified the knife Ex.P4 the same, which he had Date: 2025.10.13 15:08:06 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 16 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 seen at the time of giving his opinion mentioned in document already Ex.PW7/C.
(ii) PW12: Dr. Sarabjeet Singh deposed that on 25.11.2014, he was posted as Senior Forensic Chemical Examiner at FSL., Rohini. On that day, five sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of AK and KH were received at FSL, Rohini.
On biological examination, blood was detected on Exhibits 1, 3a, 3b, 30, 4, 5a and 5b. The Exhibits 1, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, 5a and 5b were subjected to DNA isolation. DNA was isolated from the source of Exhibits 1, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, 5a and 5b.
DNA profile of male origin has been generated from the source of exhibits '1' (Earth sample), '3a' (Shirt of victim), "3b' (Pant of victim), "3c' (Underwear of victim), '4' (Knife), 5a (T shirt of accused and '5b' (Pant of accused).
The alleles from the source of exhibit 3a (Shirt of victim), 3b (Pant of victim, 3c(Underwear of victim) 4 (knife) is matching with the source of exhibits 1 (Earth Sample), 5a (T-shirt of accused and 5b (Pant of accused).
He had annexed allelic data of exhibits 1, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, 5a and 5b identifier STR plus kit.
His detailed report in this regard was running into three pages and was exhibited as Ex.12/A (colly) bearing his signature at point A and B and his seals are at point C and D. Ramnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of "Dr. SS FSL DELHI".
(iii) PW16: Sh. Devender Nain the then Ld. PO МАСТ, North- POOJA TALWAR East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi proved the proceeding declaring Digitally signed accused Ratandeep as Proclaimed Offender. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:08:23 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 17 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW4: SI Kalyan Singh deposed that on the intervening night of 24/25.10.2014, he received information to the effect that he had to reach near temple, Saat Manjila. Mandir, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. Accordingly, he alongwith crime team staff ie. HC.
Ramesh and Ct. Jagat reached the informed place around 12:20 AM. ASI Ashok Kumar alongwith his staff met them there. He observed blood was lying on the road. One Auto Champion Mahendra bearing registration no. DL-11-2751 was found stationed there. Blood was observed on the back side of the vehicle as well as on the side of vehicle. Photographs of the spot were taken. prepared the Crime Scene report and handed over to IO ASI Ashok. Report prepared by him to this effect is Ex.PW4/A.
(ii) PW5: Ct. Sandeep deposed that on 25.11.2014, he was posted as constable at PS Tilak Nagar. On that day, MHC(M) Prem Lal handed over him five pullandas sealed with the seal of AK vide RC no. 129/21/14 for depositing the same in FSL, Delhi and he deposited the same with FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide FSL no. 2014/BIO/8691, Memo no. 5819. He obtained the receipt and handed over the same to MHC(M). No tampering with the pullandas were done till they remained in his custody.
(iii) PW6: Ct. Narender deposed that On 24.10.2014, a DD entry no.49B was received to ASI Ashok and he alongwith him reached at Khetarpal Hospital, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi, where POOJA TALWAR injured Gagandeep was found admitted in ICU Ward under treatment. One Ramandeep Singh who was stated to be the friend Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 18 of 50 15:08:32 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 of injured Gagandeep was found in the hospital and ASI Ashok recorded his statement. Thereafter, he alongwith Ramandeep and IO/ASI Ashok reached at the spot i.e. near Saat Manjila Mandir, Chhoti Sabzi Mandi. Tilak Nagar, Delhi, in a private vehicle. Ramandeep pointed out the place of occurrence and on inspection, blood stains were found at that place. ASI Ashok called the crime team at the spot and prepared a Tehrir and directed him to take the said tehrir to PS for registration of the case. On his directions, he took the Tehrir to PS Tilak Nagar, got the case registered from duty officer and returned to the spot alongwith original Tehrir and copy of FIR and handed over the same to the IO. IO lifted the blood stained earth and control earth from the spot and kept them separately in plastic container and sealed them with the help of doctor tape and affixed his seal of AK. On the pointing out of Ramandeep ASI Ashok prepared a site plan. Search of the accused was conducted in the nearby areas, bur accused was not found there at that time. On the next day at about 07:30 AM, he alongwith IO reached at Khetarpal hospital, where doctor handed over one sample seal and one puilanda sealed with the seal of KH (to my memory the pullandas was having the signature of doctor and name of injured Gagandeep), to the IO. IO recorded statement of injured Gagandeep. In the evening, for the search of the accused, he alongwith IO/ASI Ashok Kumar reached at the house of accused Jagdish situated at Ram Nagar, Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C, both bearing his signatures at points A. Seizure memo of the pullanda POOJA of the clothes got recovered by the accused from his house is TALWAR Ex.PW6/D, bearing his signatures at point A. The pointing out Digitally signed and seizure memo of the Scooty Ex.PW6/E, bearing his by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 signatures at point A. 15:08:39 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 19 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 Thereafter, IO recorded the confessional statement of accused Jagdish Gera, Ex.PW6/F bearing his signatures at point A. Medical examination of the accused was got conducted and thereafter, he was put in the lock up. He identified One blue colored T-shirt and one fauji colour pant which were recovered at the instance of accused Jagdish as Ex.P-2. He identified the photographs of scooty bearing registration no. DL10SG6884 are as recovered at the instance of accused Jagdish as Ex.P-3 (Colly).
He also identified a small plastic box containing blood stain earth control Ex.P5, one small plastic box containing earth control Ex.P6.
(iv) PW7: ASI Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 13.02.2017, he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar as ASI. On that day, he along with SI Umesh Yadav joined the investigation of this case and reached at Tis Hazari Court where SI Umesh Chand with the permission of Ld. Court arrested accused Ratandeep vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A and he was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/B bearing his signature at point A, his disclosure statement was also recorded by SI Umesh Yadav vide Ex. PW7/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he was produced before the concerned Court and sent to JC. He correctly identified accused Ratandeep in the court.
(v) PW8: SI Ramkesh deposed that on 09.02.2017, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as ASI. On that day, he along with HC Rakesh Kumar and HC Charanjeet, on secret information reached POOJA at T-Point, WZ-23, Sant Nagar Extn., Tilak Nagar and arrested TALWAR accused Ratandeep as he was PO in the present case i.e. in FIR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 20 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 FIR no.1275/14 15:08:58 +0530 No.1275/2014. He was arrested under section 41.1 C Cr. P.C. vide arrest memo Ex. PW-8/A bearing his signature at point A, personal search vide memo Ex.PW8/B bearing his signature at point A. He prepared kalandara U/s 41.1C Cr.P.C. in this regard, Ex. PW8/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he along with the accused came back to PS Rajouri Garden and he made DD No.6A in this regard regarding his arrival in the PS with the accused which is on the file, Ex.PW8/D. He also made DD No.7PP regarding his departure from PS on receipt of information regarding presence of accused at T-Point, WZ-23, Sant Nagar Extn., Tilak Nagar, Ex.PW8/E. He also gave information regarding arrest of accused in PS Tilak Nagar as he was PO of PS Tilak Nagar in case FIR No. 1275/2014.
(vi) PW8: Retd. SI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 24.10.2014, he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at police station Tilak Nagar. On that day he was on night emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am of 25.10.2014. On that night, at about 11:05 pm, on DD No. 49 B was marked to him, upon which he alongwith constable Narender reached at the spot ie. Near Choti Sabji Mandi, near saat manjila Mandir, Tilak Nagar, where some public persons met him, who informed him that injured were taken to Khaterpal hospital, Ramesh Nagar.
Thereafter, he alongwith constable Narender reached at the aforesaid hospital where came to know that injured Gagandeep was admitted in ICU and was in serious condition. One Ramandeep Singh also met him in the hospital, who informed POOJA him that he alongwith injured Gagandeep were present at the spot TALWAR when the incident happened. He instructed him to show him the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 21 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 15:09:08 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 place of incident upon which he alongwith constable Narender and Ramandeep Singh reached at the aforesaid spot. However, nobody was present there. All the shops were closed by that time and he found one Mahindra Champion vehicle stationed in front of market near one wall. The registration no. of Mahindra Champion was DL1LL 2751. He noticed blood marks on the back side of the aforesaid vehicle. He also noticed some blood on the ground near the said vehicle. He informed the Crime Team and requested them to reach at the spot. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Ramandeep Singh Ex.PW2/A bearing his attesting signature at point B. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW8/A from point A to Al bearing his signature at point B and handed over the same to constable Narender for registration of FIR. In between, Crime Team had already reached at the spot, who inspected the spot. Thereafter, constable Narender left the spot with original rukka for registration of FIR. After about one hour, constable Narender alongwith second investigating officer Sub- Inspector Ajay Kumar reached at the spot and further investigation was carried by him. His statement was recorded by the second investigating officer in this regard.
(vii) PW9: Ct. Dinesh deposed that on 26.10.2014, he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar. On that day, he joined investigation with IO SI Ajay Kumar. During investigation, accused Jagdish Ghera @ Goldi was produced before the concerned court at Tis Hazari Court where IO had obtained the PC remand of accused. The accused stated that he could get the knife used in commission of POOJA offence in the present case, recovered and, therefore, his PC TALWAR remand was obtained. During PC remand, the accused led them Digitally signed by to Keshav Puram nala, Outer Ring Road and from near the nala POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:09:20 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 22 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 he got recovered one knife which was buried inside the mud. The accused stated that it was the same knife, which was used by him to stab Gagandeep. The knife had blood stains. IO placed the knife on a plain paper and prepared a sketch of the same. The blade as well as the butt of knife was made up of steel substance. The sketch of knife is Ex.PW9/A. Thereafter, IO seized the said knife by making a cloth pullanda and putting the seal of AK on it. The seizure memo of knife is Ex.PW9/B. The seal, after use was given by the IO to him. During PC remand, IO also made efforts to search the co-accused Ratan Deep Singh, but he could not be found. Thereafter, accused Jagdish was taken to DDU hospital for his medical examination and thereafter, he was brought to the PS and kept in lock-up. The case property was deposited by the IO in the malkhana. His statement was recorded by the IO. He correctly identified accused Jagdish Gera in the court.
He identified knife which was got recovered by accused Jagdish Gera in his presence. The knife is Ex.P-4.
(viii) PW10: HC Jagat Singh deposed that on 24.10.2014, he was posted in the Mobile Crime Team of West District and was working as photographer. In the night of 24-25/10/2014, their crime team reached at the spot i.e. Tilak Nagar near Saat Manjila Mandir adjoining to the nursery wall at Chhoti Subzi Mandi. On reaching there, he noticed that blood was there on the spot and also some blood stains were there on Mahindra Champion vehicle bearing no.2751 parked there. He clicked the photographs of the spot from different angles. His statement was recorded by POOJA TALWAR the IO of the case later. He produced 10 negatives of the photographs which were taken by him. The same are Ex.PW10/A Digitally signed by POOJA (colly). Eight photographs lying on judicial file were shown to TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:09:34 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 23 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 the witness who stated that these are the same photographs, which were clicked by him. The said photographs are Ex.PW10/B (Colly).
(ix) PW11: ASI Prem Ram Arya brought register no.19. In the said register, at sl. no.4433, he made entry regarding the vehicle no. DL10SG6864 and one sealed parcel bearing the seal of AK, which were deposited in the Malkhana by SI Ajay Kumar on 25.10.2014 in connection with the present case. Vide the same entry. SI Ajay Kumar had also deposited two sealed plastic boxes containing the earth control and the blood stained earth control and one sealed parcel bearing the seal of KH containing the clothes of Gagandeep Singh.
On 26.10.2014, SI Ajay again deposited the cases property pertaining to the present case ie. one sealed pullanda containing knife and bearing the seal of AK. Same was entered into register no. 19 by him vide sl. nо.4435. The photocopies of relevant pages of the register no. 19 containing entries at sl. no.4433 and 4435 are Ex.PW11/A. On 25.11.2014, he sent five parcels containing the earth control, blood stained earth control, knife, clothes of injured and clothes of accused to FSL through Ct. Sandeep Kumar vide RC no. 129/21/14. He produced original register no.21 containing the above-said RC Number. The photocopy of said RC is Ex.PW11/B. Ct. Sandeep on his return from FSL, handed over the original acceptance from the FSL to him, which he filed in register no.21. The photocopy of said acknowledgment is POOJA Ex.PW11/C. TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:09:42 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 24 of 50 FIR no.1275/14
(x) PW13: SI Sunil Chandra deposed that he did not remember the exact date, but in April 2017 investigation in the present case was marked to him. He perused the file. He collected FSL result which was deposited in Maalkhana. He filed supplementary charge sheet with FSL Result against both the accused persons.
(xi) PW14: Insp. Ajay Kumar deposed that on 25.10.2014, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He along with Ct.Narender reached at the place of incident i.e. choti A subzi mandi, near sat manjila mandir where ASI Ashok, SI Kalyan incharge crime team and complainant Ramandeep Singh were present. ASI Ashok handed over him crime team report prepared by SI Kalyan. He recorded statement of Crime Team officials and ASI Ashok. He prepared site plan of the spot Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point B at the instance of complainant. Blood was lying at the spot and he lifted the earth control and put it into plastic box and sealed with the seal of "AK" and took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C bearing his signatures at point C. He also lifted blood stains earth control from the spot and put into a plastic box and sealed the same with the seal of "AK" and took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D bearing his signatures at Pt. C. Thereafter, he visited Khterpal Hospital and collected MLC of injured Gagandeep Singh and his seal exhibits with the seal of hospital from the doctor. He took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point C. He searched the accused and in search of accused Jagdish Gera @ Goldi reached his house At WZ18, Ram POOJA Nagar, Tilak Nagar where accused was present at the house. He TALWAR was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 25 of 50 15:09:48 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 bearing his signatures at point B and personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/C bearing his signatures at point B. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Jagdish Gera Ex.PW6/F bearing his signatures at Pt. B. In his disclosure statement, accused Jagdish Gera disclosed that his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident and on which blood got stained and also got recovered the knife used in the incident which he threw in the keshav pur drain (nala). Accused took them inside his house in a room at third floor and took out from the almirah his one blood stained T-shirt blue colour and one pant fouji colour and stated that he was wearing the said clothes at the time of incident. He took the same into police possession after preparing its pullinda and sealed with the seal of "AK" vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D bearing his signatures at point B. Accused Jagdish also got recorded one white colour scooty DL---6864 from the street outside his house and stated that said scooty was used by him in the incident of present case. The said scooty was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/E bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, they along with the accused Jagdish Gera searched for other accused Ratandeep but he was not found. As it was night hour, they got conducted medical examination of Jagdish Gera and on the next day he was produced before the concerned court. One day PC remand of accused Jagdish Gera was granted by concerned court. During PC remand, accused Jagdish Gera took them to Keshav Pur drain and took out one knife from the mud lying by the side of the drain. He prepared sketch of said knife Ex.PW9/A bearing his signatures at point B. The said knife was taken into police POOJA possession by preparing its pullinda and affixed with seal of AK TALWAR on it. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Dinesh. Sealed Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 26 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 FIR no.1275/14 15:09:55 +0530 pullinda was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B bearing his signatures at point B. They searched for other accused but he was not found and accused was brought to PS Tilak Nagar and was sent to lockup and produced before the concerned court and he was sent to JC. Accused Jagdish Gera correctly identified in the court. The sealed pullindas were sent to FSL. He collected MLC of injured and recorded his statement and obtained subsequent opinion from the doctor regarding the weapon of offence. He filed charge-sheet against accused Jagdish Gera. As accused Ratan deep was absconding therefore, his NBWs were taken and proceedings u/s 82 CrPC were initiated against him vide application Ex.PW14/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused Ratan deep was got declared PO vide his request Ex.PW14/B bearing his signatures at point A and he filed supplementary charge-sheet against him. He identified clothes of accused Ex.P2, photographs of scooty Ex.P3 and Knife Ex.P4.
(xii) PW15: Insp. Umesh Yadav deposed that on 10.02.2017, accused Ratandeep was arrested by ASI Ramkesh PS Rajouri Garden under kalandara. Accused Ratandeep was correctly identified by him. He received notice from the concerned court regarding production of accused Ratandeep for 13.02.2017. On 13.02.2017, he along with ASI Ramesh Kumar reached Tis Hazari court where accused was produced from J/C. He moved an application before the concerned court for interrogation and arrest. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused with the permission of the court and arrested him vide arrest memo POOJA Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point B and personally TALWAR searched him vide Ex.PW7/B bearing his signatures at point B. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 27 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 FIR no.1275/14 15:10:02 +0530 He recorded disclosure statement vide Ex.PW7/C bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, accused was produced before concerned court and sent to J/C. He recorded statement of ASI Ramkesh and ASI Ramesh and filed charge-sheet against accused Ratandeep.
6. Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 CrP.C Accused Jagdish Gera @ Goldi stated that it is a false case. All the witnesses were interested witness and deposed falsely against him at the instance of IO. He is innocent and has nothing to do with the present case and nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the recovery shown is false and was planted upon him to falsely implicate him in the present case.
7. In his statement u/s 313 CrP.C of accused Ratandeep Singh stated that it is a false case. All the witnesses were interested witnesses. He is innocent and had nothing to do with the present case. He was neither called at the police station by the police officials nor received any notice to join the investigation. He was residing in his property for the last 18 years.
Arguments on behalf of the State
8. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution succeeded in proving the presence of accused persons on the date of incident and the time as deposed by the injured and the complainant. Recovery of weapon at the instance of accused POOJA Jagdish @ Goldi corroborates the story of the prosecution. FSL TALWAR report too goes against accused Jagdish. Testimonies of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 28 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 FIR no.1275/14 15:10:10 +0530 prosecution witnesses is sufficient to hold accused persons guilty.
Arguments on behalf of accused
9. Ld. counsel for accused, per contra argued that the star witnesses of the prosecution have given different versions and have turned hostile. They have not supported story of prosecution. Recovery of knife is suspicious and the same has been planted in order to falsely implicate the accused persons. FSL Report is false and fabricated. No definite opinion has been given by the doctor with regard to weapon of offence. Accused persons deserve to be acquitted.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Analysis of Law:
11. The essential ingredients to prove offence under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) are (1) an act done with intention or knowledge to cause death and (2) this act must be performed under such circumstances that if it resulted in death, it would constitute murder.
12. The prosecution must prove the mens rea (guilty mind) and the actus reus (guilty act). Proof of injury is not mandatory, but the act itself must be of a nature that shows the intention or knowledge to cause death.
POOJA
13. Now in order to prove Intention or Knowledge to TALWAR cause death, prosecution must prove that the Act must be Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 29 of 50 15:10:17 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 performed with the specific intent to cause death, or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.
14. In the five prime point to complete the offence are enumerated below:
1. The Act: The accused must have performed an act that shows a clear intention or knowledge to commit murder.
2. Circumstances: The circumstances surrounding the act must be such that if the act had resulted in death, it would have been considered murder.
3. Risk of Death: The act must be so dangerous and imminently threatening that it carries a high probability of causing death or severe bodily injury, and the accused has no excuse for incurring this risk.
Important Considerations- Proof of Injury is Not Required:
Unlike murder, causing an actual injury is not a necessary element to prove an attempt to murder under Section 307. The focus is on the act and the intention or knowledge behind it.
4. Failed Attempt: A Section 307 offense is, by definition, a failed attempt to commit murder, where the death is not ultimately caused.
5. Severity of the Act: The severity of the offense is determined by the potential risk involved and the circumstances, not merely POOJA TALWAR the eventual outcome.Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:10:26 +0530
SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 30 of 50 FIR no.1275/14
15. Voluntarily causing hurt is defined under Section 321 punishment for which is defined under Section 323 IPC. Section 321 IPC is reproduced herein under:
321. Voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".
16. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfill the requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre- arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
POOJA
17. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and TALWAR acting in concert pursuance to that plan. Common intention Digitally signed by POOJA SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 31 of 50 TALWAR FIR no.1275/14 Date: 2025.10.13 15:10:38 +0530 comes into being prior to the commission of act in point of time which need not be a long gap.
Observation of the Court:
18. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on the complaint Ex.PW2/A of Ramandeep wherein he stated that he alongwith his friend Gagandeep went to Oberoi Shop Tilak Nagar for having chicken. Amandeep who was the owner of the said shop informed them that one Goldi who was having food in the adjoining shop had not cleared his dues. Upon this Gagandeep approached said Goldi and confronted him. This led to brawl between the two. Thereafter said Goldi alongwith his friends started assaulting Gagandeep. Goldi gave several knife blows to Gagandeep and his friends assaulted him with fist and leg blows. When he intervened the said Goldi and his friends fled from the spot.
19. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, accused persons have been charged for offence under Section 307/34 and 323/34 IPC and 174A IPC.
20. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined injured Gagandeep who deposed that on 23.10.2014 accused Jagdish @ Goldi alonwith his friend Ratandeep was having dinner. When he tried to confront accused Jagdish @ Goldi as to why he did not make payment to Amandeep, Owner of Oberoi hotel, accused Goldi got furious and started abusing him.
Thereafter Goldi alongwith his friend Ratandeep followed him, POOJA Goldi inflicted knife injuries on his person and Ratandeep caught TALWAR hold of him and gave him fist and leg blows. Ratandeep also had Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 32 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 15:10:45 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 object like brick in his hand with which he inflicted injuries. Due to the impact of the injuries he fell down. Accused Goldi and his accomplice Ratandeep fled.
21. He identified his clothes, clothes of accused Goldi. In his cross-examination he stated that his statement was not recorded by police but his signatures were obtained on the document. He also stated that it was dark at the time of incident and that he became unconscious after the assault. He further stated that whatever he deposed in the court was under
instructions from Ramandeep. He also admitted that accused persons did not assault him.
22. The next material witness examined by the prosecution is Ramandeep on whose complaint the case was registered. He corroborated testimony of Gagandeep as deposed by him in his examination in chief. He further stated that when he went to pay the bill he saw that 3-4 boys were quarreling with each other. Two boys fled on scooty and he saw his friend Gagadeep smeared with blood. He did not know who caused injuries to Gagandeep. He expressed his inability to identify those 3-4 boys who were quarreling. He admitted his statement Ex.PW2/A and site plan Ex.PW2/B being prepared at his instance. He also admitted that he had shown the blood of Gagandeep on the auto, blood samples and other samples were lifted by police in his presence. Seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D were prepared under his signatures.
POOJA TALWAR
23. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP he Digitally signed by admitted that contents of Ex.PW2/A were under his dictation and POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:10:51 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 33 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 the same were read over to him before he signed the same. He admitted that he saw Goldi and his friends beating Gagandeep and Goldi giving knife blows to him. Friends of Goldi gave leg and fist blows was also admitted by him in cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP.
24. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Jagdish @ Goldi he stated that he knew Goldi before the incident.
25. He was again called for examination after arrest of accused Ratandeep. Since he was not disclosing the complete facts he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP and he stated that he did not remember if had seen accused Jagdish alongwith his friends surrounding Gagandeep and giving knife blows. He admitted that he raised alarm " pakdo pakdo and accused alongwith his friends fled on scooty." He did not remember if boys who accompanied Jagdish gave beatings to Gagandeep with kick and fist blows. At the time of identification of accused Ratandeep he stated that he does not remember if he was with accused Jagdish or not.
26. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused persons he stated that he signed the documents as asked by the police. No site plan was prepared at his instance. He stated it to be correct that Amandeep, the owner of the restaurant Oberoi Chicken had not made a complaint to Gagandeep that Jagdish @ Goldi had not paid the bill for the food he ate earlier in his POOJA presence. He further stated that he named the accused persons to TALWAR the police though he had not seen the alleged incident as the said Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 34 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 FIR no.1275/14 15:10:59 +0530 names were taken by Gagandeep. He stated that he did not see the incident but had taken injured to hospital. He was never taken by the police for identification of the accused.
27. PW3 Amandeep Singh he was the owner of Oberoi Chicken. He deposed that on 24.10.2014 at about 8.39 pm Gagandeep PW1 and Ramandeep PW2 came to his shop. After some time Gagandeep went out to ease himself, he had a verbal altercation with accused Goldi. Their friends intervened and pacified them. After some time Ramandeep came to his shop and informed him that Gagandeep had sustained injuries and took his car. This witness denied his statement mark PW3/A. He denied that he informed Gagandeep that accused Jagdish @ Goldi did not clear his bill upon which Gagandeep confronted Goldi. He denied that upon this altercation took place between Goldi and Gagandeep.
28. With this backdrop I proceed to decide the charges levelled against the accused persons.
29. Accused persons have firstly been charged for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC for giving knife blows on the head, chest and abdomen of PW1 Gagandeep with an intention or knowledge that the same could have caused his death.
30. In order to prove the said offence evidence of PW1 POOJA TALWAR PW2 and PW3 would be relevant. Examination in chief of PW1 Digitally signed by Gagandeep who was the injured was recorded twice, once before POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 arrest of accused Ratandeep and second post his arrest. 15:11:09 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 35 of 50 FIR no.1275/14
31. In case his testimony is scrutinized it would reveal that he categorically deposed that injuries with knife were inflicted by accused Goldi and accused Ratandeep caught hold him while the knife injuries were inflicted by accused Goldi. He also deposed that Ratandeep had some brick like object in his hand.
32. When this witness again stepped into the witness box for his cross-examination, stated that the injuries were not inflicted by the accused persons and that he deposed on the earlier occasions on the basis of what was informed to him by PW2 Ramandeep. Upon re-examination by ld. APP he stated that his testimony recorded on 13.05.16 and 16.07.2019 are correct and he disclosed the facts correctly.
33. Similarly PW2 Ramandeep who is the complainant was examined twice. He deposed that he did not know who caused injuries to Gagandeep and that he cannot identify 3-4 boys who inflicted injuries. This witness admitted his statement Ex.PW2/A and stated that the contents were read out to him before he signed the same. He admitted the site plan Ex.PW2/B prepared at his instance. He also admitted that blood samples were collected by the police in his presence and identified his signatures on seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D.
34. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP and in his cross-examination he admitted that he told the IO that accused POOJA Goldi and his 2-3 friends went after Gagandeep PW1 and that TALWAR they started beating him. Goldi inflicted injuries with knife and Digitally signed by POOJA when he raise an alarm, Goldi and his friend fled. He also TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:11:16 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 36 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 admitted that he informed the IO that Goldi and his friends inflicted knife injuries on Gagandeep with an intention to kill him. He again said that he did not see knife in the hands of accused.
35. When he was again called for recording of his testimony post the arrest of accused Ratandeep he did not state the complete facts accordingly he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP. He then stated that he did not remember if he had seen accused Jagdish alongwith his friends surrounding Gagandeep and giving knife blows or that when he raised alarm they fled. He admitted that he raised alarm "pakdo pakdo" and accused with his friends fled on scooty.
36. When asked to identify accused Ratandeep he stated that he did not remember if he was present with accused Jagdish. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused he stated that he gave the names of accused persons to the police at the instance of Gagandeep though he had not seen the incident. He also admitted that he had not seen the incident and that he only taken the injured to hospital.
37. PW3 Amandeep Singh deposed that a quarrel ensued between Gagandeep and Goldi and he was informed by Ramandeep PW2 that Gagandeep had sustained injuries and he took his car.
POOJA
38. It is argued on behalf of accused persons that PW1, TALWAR PW2 and PW3 have not completely supported the case of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR prosecution hence their testimony is not reliable. Prosecution Date: 2025.10.13 15:11:24 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 37 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 failed to prove presence of accused Ratandeep as neither PW2 nor PW3 identify him as the person who was present alongwith accused Jagdish @ Goldi on the date of incident.
39. In order to understand how the testimony of witness who is cross-examined by the party who produced him is to be scrutinized, reliance is placed on:-
40. Case titled K. P. TAMILMARAN Vs. THE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1522 OF 2023] it is held that:
A party can cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 Evidence Act, even without getting a declaration of 'hostility'. The only restriction to cross- examination under Section 154 Evidence Act is that the party, who seeks to cross- examine its own witness, must obtain the leave of the Court. Whether there is a declaration of 'hostility' or not, one thing is clear that evidence of witness, who has been cross-examined under Section 154 Evidence Act by the party who called such witness, cannot be washed off entirely and it is for the Court to see what can be retrieved from such evidence.
This can be understood from another aspect. We shall now refer to the definition of the term 'evidence' given under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. It reads as follows:
"Evidence" - "Evidence" means and includes - (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by POOJA witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such TALWAR statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including Digitally signed by POOJA electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:11:32 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 38 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 document are called documentary evidence." (Emphasis Provided).
The statements made by a witness in Court, including in cross-examination, either conducted by the opposite party or by the party who produced the witness, would come under the definition of 'evidence' under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, since this evidence has come before the Court with its permission. Moreover, there is no specific bar under the Evidence Act which mandates that such evidence has to be discarded. Thus, it would form part of the entire evidence which the Court can examine while arriving at its decision, and it is for the Court to determine what value has to be given to that piece of evidence or how such evidence has to be used in a given case.
Viewed from a different perspective, the rejection of the entire testimony of a prosecution witness, who has been cross- examined by the prosecution, would not only harm the case of the prosecution but perhaps also of the defence in a given case."
41. This is because as the law stands today, the benefit of the testimony of such witness can be taken by both the prosecution and the defence, allowing them to use it to build their case [See: Paulmeli v. State of T.N. (2014) 13 SCC 90, Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P. (2012) 5 SCC 777] . In any case, ultimately, it will be the cause of justice that will suffer if the testimony of such witness is totally discarded. It is, therefore, rightly left to the discretion of the Court to test the evidentiary POOJA value of such a testimony. TALWAR It is though trite and much overstated but the maxim Digitally signed by "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", is not applicable to our POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:12:45 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 39 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 criminal justice system. It is for the Court to distinguish the wheat from the chaff while dealing with the depositions of a hostile witness. Courts can rely upon that part of the deposition of a hostile witness which is corroborated by other evidence on record. This Court in Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327 discussed the worth of the evidence of a hostile witness in the following words: It is settled law that the evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version of the incident. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the records, it remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence...
If part of the evidence of a hostile witness corroborates with other reliable evidence, then that part of the evidence is admissible. Once a prosecution witness has been declared hostile and then cross-examined by the prosecution, then it is for the Court to evaluate the veracity of the testimony. There can be several reasons for a witness to turn hostile and the court must also look into these factors while evaluating the evidence given by a hostile witness. It is an uncomfortable reality in our criminal Courts for a prosecution witness to turn hostile. But then the purpose of a Trial Court is to go to the truth of the matter. Whatever evidence is there before the Court must be examined, tested, corroborated (whenever necessary), before a verdict can be finally given."
42. POOJA Placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in K.P. (supra) evidence led by prosecution shall be discerned.
TALWAR Presence of accused Jagdish @ Goldi at the place and time of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:12:52 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 40 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 incident is not denied by the accused. His presence is proved even otherwise through the testimony of PW2 and PW3 who have all deposed that a quarrel ensued between Gagandeep PW1 and accused Jagdish @ Goldi. It is not denied by the accused in the cross-examination of these three witnesses that neither did any quarrel occurred nor accused Jagdish was present.
43. Accused Ratandeep has been charged with the alleged offence for his presence and for his common intention with accused Jagdish @ Goldi in commission of crime. Name of accused Ratandeep is not mentioned in complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW2 Ramandeep at the time of his identification stated that he does not remember in case accused Ratandeep was present alongwith accused Goldi at the time of incident. PW3 Amandeep did not name Ratandeep at all. He only knew accused Goldi, PW1 Gagandeep and PW2 Ramandeep, being his regular customers.
44. As per the prosecution story name of accused Ratandeep surfaced in the disclosure statement of accused Goldi and statement of injured Gagandeep. Both these statements are recorded on the same day i.e. 25.10.2014. No previous enmity between Gagandeep and accused Ratandeep has been brought on record to presume false implication.
45. PW1 Gagandeep is an injured witness and law has already been settled that an injured person will not falsely POOJA TALWAR implicate anyone for his injuries unless a strong motive behind Digitally signed the same is brought on record. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:12:59 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 41 of 50 FIR no.1275/14
46. At this stage it would be relevant to discuss the credibility of testimony of injured witness. The law with respect to appreciation of evidence of an injured witness has been settled in the following pronouncements:
(A) In Mukesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as AIR 2017 SC 2161 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "The depositions of an injured witness should be relied upon, unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the same stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident."
(B) In Maqsoodan Vs. State of UP reported as (1983) 1 SCC 218 the Hon'ble Supreme court observed that: "Presence of an injured witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of the incident and they should normally be not disbelieved."
(C) The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "In a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with POOJA care." Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs State of UP TALWAR reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Apex Court: "Whether the witness should be or should not be Date: 2025.10.13 15:13:05 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 42 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978)."
47. Once Gagandeep PW1 had named Ratandeep as accomplice of Goldi and categorically deposed that he gave kick and fist blows to him alongwith accused Goldi, the accused had to explain that why he was falsely implicated or a defence of alibi should have been taken.
48. There is no denial of fact that prosecution has to stand on its own legs and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is discussed in length above that an injured is presumed to name the right person as his assailant, unless contrary is proved, the presumption will weigh in favour of injured.
49. Once the prosecution succeeded in proving that both POOJA the accused persons were present at the place and time of TALWAR incident, then testimonies of PW1 and PW2 need to be discerned Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 43 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 15:13:11 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 minutely as they did not completely support the story of prosecution and resiled from their previous statements when recalled for cross-examination.
50. It is deposed by PW1 in his examination in chief that injuries were inflicted with a knife by accused Goldi and accused Ratandeep gave leg and fist blows. He also stated that both the accused managed to flee on scooty.
51. In his cross-examination he resiled from his previous statement supposedly being won over by the accused persons. He admitted the suggestion of counsel for accused that accused persons did not assault him. No suggestion was given to this witness that the accused persons were not present on the date and place of incident as alleged. This witness admitted that he disclosed correct facts on the two dates i.e. 13.05.2015 and 16.07.2019.
52. Interestingly a person who categorically deposed that accused persons caused injuries in his first statement and takes a complete U-turn when cross-examined is surely won over by the accused.
53. Now PW2 when stepped into the witness box resiled from his previous statement and stated that he did not know who inflicted injuries on Gagandeep. But he admitted his complaint Ex.PW2/A stating that the same was recorded under his dictation and before getting the same signed the same was read over to POOJA TALWAR him. He also mentions about two boys fleeing on scooty post the Digitally signed quarrel. In his cross-examination by Addl. PP he admitted that a by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 44 of 50 15:13:20 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 quarrel took place and that accused Goldi and his friends inflicted knife injuries with an intention to kill Gagandeep.
54. No suggestion was given to him that quarrel did not take place between Gagandeep and accused persons firstly and secondly that accused persons were not present at the place of incident.
55. In his testimony post arrest of accused Ratandeep he admitted the factum of quarrel between Jagdish and Gagandeep and the fact that due to passage of time he might have forgotten the facts. He admitted that he raised alarm "pakdo pakdo" and accused with his friends fled on scooty.
56. From the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 presence of both the accused persons at the place of incident stands proved. Though PW1 and PW2 have given different versions on different dates when they stepped into the witness box yet the prosecution has been able to extract the fact of injuries sustained by Gagandeep to be inflicted by accused persons.
57. It is alleged against the accused Jagdish that he gave knife injury to Gagandeep PW1. PW9 Ct. Dinesh was part of the investigating team when the recovery of blood stained knife was effected at the instance of Jagdish from the place near naala. This POOJA witness has not been cross-examined by the accused persons TALWAR hence his testimony is unrebutted and uncontroverted. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:13:27 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 45 of 50 FIR no.1275/14
58. MLC Ex.PW7/A was proved by Dr. Anil Khetarpal. As per the said MLC there were nine injuries sustained by injured Gagandeep. The cumulative effect of all the injuries sustained by Gagandeep were in the opinion of Dr. Khetarpal dangerous to life and the sharp injuries mentioned at no.2, 3 and 5 could have been inflicted by the knife allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Jagdish. Gagandeep remained in hospital from 24.10.2014 to 31.10.2014.
59. Dr. Khetarpal PW7 seized clothes of the injured Gagandeep but did not mention the same in the MLC as the same were handed over to the IO. Besides the clothes of injured, the blood stained knife, blood on the earth and clothes of accused were sent to FSL.
60. PW6 is the witness to recovery of clothes at the instance of accused. Testimony of PW6 with respect to recovery of case property could not be impeached despite extensive cross- examination.
61. Prosecution also produced PW5 Ct. Sandeep who deposited the exhibits in FSL and PW11 ASI Prem Ram Arya who made entries in the register when the said exhibits were deposited in the maalkhana and from where they were handed over to Ct. Sandeep PW5 and sent to FSL.
62. FSL result Ex.PW12/A was proved by Dr. Sarabjeet. As per the said result blood on the clothes of accused matched POOJA with that of injured Gagandeep alongwith blood stained knife. TALWAR This further corroborates the substantive evidence brought on Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 46 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 FIR no.1275/14 15:13:34 +0530 record against the accused persons.
63. From the evidence as brought on record discussed in the preceding paragraphs proved that the injuries caused to Gagandeep were inflicted with the knife by accused Jagdish alongwith his accomplice accused Ratandeep.
64. Now the question which needs deliberation is whether the injuries were inflicted with an intention and knowledge to cause death to hold the accused persons guilty under Section 307 IPC.
65. Both Section 307 and 308 deal with failed attempt to cause death. Section 307 applies when the accused had a clear intent to kill and Section 308 applies when the act was dangerous and could cause death, but there wasn't a definite intention to kill.
66. In analyising the elements required for conviction under Section 307 IPC the presence of intent or knowledge is critical. These elements can be inferred from the nature of the act, the severity of injuries and the circumstances under which the act occurred.
67. Per contra while the injuries may be grievous but in case they do not conclusively establish an intent to kill but reflect recklessness and disregard for life in the actions of the accused then provision of Section 308 IPC are attracted.
POOJA
68. In case titled Ansarudin Vs. State of Madhya TALWAR Pradesh (1997) 2 Crimes 157 (MP) it is held that" It is not Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 47 of 50 Date: 2025.10.13 15:13:41 +0530 FIR no.1275/14 necessary that injury, capable of causing death, should have been inflicted. What is material to attract, the provisions of Section 307 is the guilty intention or knowledge with which the all was done, irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results."
69. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is deposed by complainant PW1 Gagandeep that " Goldi inflicted knife injury".
70. During investigation a knife was recovered at instance of accused Goldi. Dr. Anil Khetarpal PW7 categorically opined the injury as sharp in nature and the cumulative effect of all injuries was dangerous to life. PW1 Gagandeep was hospitalized for around a week.
71. Now moving on to intention of accused persons, the same is writ large in the conduct. They did not stop after inflicting knife injury but went ahead and gave fist and let blows to PW1 Gagandeep.
72. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above, prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
73. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the POOJA considered view that the accused persons deserve to be convicted TALWAR under Section 307 IPC.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 48 of 50 15:13:48 +0530 FIR no.1275/14
74. Further the accused persons have been charged under Section 323 IPC for giving fist and leg blows to Gagandeep.
75. It has been discussed in detail that both PW1 and PW2 deposed that leg and fist blows were given by accused Jagdish @ Goldi and his friend. PW1 categorically explained the role of both the accused persons in inflicting injuries with legs and fists. It has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that prosecution succeeded in proving the presence of both the accused persons at the place of incident and that injuries were sustained by Gagandeep which were inflicted by accused persons.
76. In view of the same prosecution succeeded in proving that hurt was caused to Gagandeep by the accused persons.
77. Further accused Ratandeep has also been charged for the offence under Section 174A IPC for non appearance before the court despite issuance of proclamation and being declared as Proclaimed Offender by the court Ex.PW16/A and PW16/B respectively. PW16 Sh. Devender Nain, the then Ld. MM categorically deposed that before declaring the accused as PO he perused the report of SI Ajay Kumar PW1/A and recorded his statement in court. No suggestion has been given to this witness that the accused was present at the aforesaid address POOJA during the relevant time. It is only suggested that proceedings TALWAR under Section 82 CrPC conducted mechanically. No evidence has Digitally signed by POOJA been brought on record by the accused of his presence at the said TALWAR Date: 2025.10.13 15:13:54 +0530 SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 49 of 50 FIR no.1275/14 address in his defence nor any suggestion of his presence has been given to the Ld. MM who declared him as proclaimed offender.
78. Prosecution thus succeeded in proving that accused Ratandeep deliberately avoided his presence in the court and he is liable under Section 174/A IPC.
79. In view of the aforesaid findings accused Jagdish Gera @ Goldi is convicted for commission of offence under Section 307/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC and accused Ratandeep Singh is convicted for offence under Section 307/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC and Section 174A IPC. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.10.13 15:14:06 +0530 Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) on 13.10.2025 ASJ-01(FTC) West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi SC No. 57254/16 State. Vs. Jagdish Gera & anr. Page : 50 of 50 FIR no.1275/14