Delhi District Court
State vs Majid (In Jc) on 19 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA : SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, (NORTH-EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No. : 14(I)/15 FIR No. : 202/2015 U/Sec. : 307 IPC PS : Gokal Puri Case ID : 44710/2015 State Versus Majid (in JC) S/o Sh. Iqbal R/o B-166, Gali No. 6, Phase-II, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi Date of Institution : 30.06.2015 Date of reserving order : 09.12.2016 Date of Judgment : 16.12.2016 JUDGMENT
Indictment:
1. On 01.03.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. in F-Block, Ganga Vihar nala, water pipeline, Delhi, Majid (In short 'the accused') stabbed Balraj with a knife and caused multiple injuries to right side of his lower ribcage, right nipple, left nipple and abdomen besides several injuries to his hand and face with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, he would have caused death of Balraj (In short 'injured'), he would have been guilty of offence of attempt to murder punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 1 of 20
Charge-sheet:
2. On 01.03.2015 at 4.55 p.m., PW-7 ASI Brahm Singh received a PCR call through wireless operator regarding 'a quarrel at F-76, Gali No. 2, Ganga Vihar opposite pipe-line and an injured' vide DD No. 16A Ex.PW7/A. He informed about the said PCR call to PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh through telephone.
PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh with PW-6 Ct. Kunji Lal reached at the place of incident at F-Block, Ganga Vihar nala, near pipe-line where he found Balraj smeared in blood. PW-1 Kirno, mother of Balraj and PCR Van were present. PCR Van taken Balraj to GTB Hospital. There was no eye witness. PCR Van handed him over the accused. He made a call on mobile phone of PW-15 Ct. Mukesh, Beat Officer and called him. He left PW-15 Ct. Mukesh to guard the place of incident. He left the accused in the custody of PW-6 Ct. Kunji Lal. He went to GTB Hospital. He collected MLC of Balraj Ex.PW2/A. He collected a sealed parcel containing clothes of Balraj and sample seal having impression 'GTB Hospital SHD Delhi' vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/E. Balraj was 'unfit for statement'. In the hospital, he recorded statement of PW-1 Kirno Ex.PW1/A which is translated as under:
"Statement of Smt. Kirno W/o Sh. Suresh R/o H. No. B-452, Gokal Puri, Delhi. Age 60 years. Mob. No. 9999670147.
Stated that I am residing alongwith my family at the afore-said address. I am a house-maker. Balraj is my youngest son. He is living a married life. Majid S/o Mohd. Iqbal R/o B-166, Gali No. 6, Phase-II, Bhagirathi Vihar, Dlehi-94 had taken my son from my house and injured him by stabbing knife for unknown reasons near F-Block Ganga Vihar nala.FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 2 of 20
Public person came to me and informed that my son was injured with knife. Thereafter, I reached F-Block Ganga Vihar nala through a three-wheeler. I saw a PCR Van coming. On seeing PCR Van, the accused Majid S/o Mohd. Iqbal started fleeing from the place of incident. I identified him and made noise. Police with the assistance of public persons caught him and handed him over to you. I alongwith my son came to GTB Hospital in PCR Van. My son is under treatment. Legal action be taken against Majid. You have recorded my statement. I have heard it. It is correct."
3. PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh returned to the place of incident. He found blood stains on the jeans pant Ex.Art.5 worn by the accused. He seized the said jeans pant vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D. He made endorsement for registration of case under section 307 IPC Ex.PW17/A. On 01.03.2015 at 8.00 p.m., he handed over rukka to PW-6 Ct. Kunji Lal for being taken to PS Gokal Puri.
4. On 01.03.2015 at 8.20 p.m., PW-7 ASI Brahm Singh, on receipt of rukka, made endorsement Ex.PW7/B on rukka. He got the case FIR Ex.PW7/C recorded through computer operator. He assigned further investigation of the case to PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh.
5. During investigation, PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh inspected the place of incident at the instance of PW-1 Kirno and prepared site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW17/B. He interrogated the accused. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and conducted personal search vide memo Ex.PW6/B. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/C. He made search for the knife in the drain but in vain.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 3 of 206. PW-8 Dr. Dheer, Senior Resident, Deptt. of Surgery, GTB Hospital opined that the nature of injuries sustained by Balraj was 'grievous'. The case exhibits were sent to FSL. He recorded statement of witnesses conversant with the case. He submitted charge-sheet under section 307 IPC. The charge:
7. On appraisal of the material on record, the accused was charged under section 307 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution evidence:
8. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses, as under:
The witnesses Description of the witnesses PW-1 Kirno Mother of the injured / the complainant PW-2 Dr. Sushil, CMO, GTBH Examined the injured PW-3 Dr. Prateek Sihag Sr. Resident, Radiology, GTB Hospital PW-4 Balraj The injured PW-5 HC Pradeep Kumar In-charge, PCR Van, North-East Distt. PW-6 Ct. Kunji Lal Taken rukka to police station PW-7 ASI Brahm Singh Duty Officer, PS Gokal Puri PW-8 Dr. Dheer Sr. Resident, Surgery, GTB Hospital PW-9 Dr. Abhilash Singh Conducted operation upon injured PW-10 Dr. Vivek Referred the injured to surgery PW-11 Dr. Saket Singh Prepared admission summary of injured PW-12 Dr. Ritwik Obtained consent of the injured PW-13 Dr. P. Ram, CCMO Collected blood sample of the injured PW-14 Dr. Suminder Kaur Assistant Director, FSL, Delhi PW-15 Ct. Mukesh Guard the Scene of Crime PW-16 Rahul Public witness PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh Investigating Officer PW-18 Dr. Vinay Kumar, CMO Examined the accused FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 4 of 20 The statement of the accused:
9. Incriminating circumstances and evidence were put to the accused as required under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied each and every incriminating circumstance. He stated that the injured wrongly identified him at the instance of ASI Hukam Singh. He stated that the police apprehended him. He stated that the police beaten him. He stated that the jeans pant was not seized from him. He stated that the jeans pant Ex.Art.5 did not relate him. His plea is as under:
"Question 94: Do you want to say anything else? Ans. I was falsely implicated in this case on 01.03.2015. I was going with Sri Ram Singh, uncle to my elder brother's house namely Arshad at Bhagirathi Vihar, Phase-II. Sri Ram Singh is a painter and doing the job of painting in the house of my brother. When we reached near the place of incident, I saw that several persons gathered there. In the meantime, police officials were trying to disperse the mob and in course of that one of the police official wrongly apprehended me. I do not know about the facts and circumstances of the case. All the evidence collected by the police are incorrect. I am innocent."
Defence evidence:
10. The defence examined Ram Singh in defence evidence as DW-1. He deposed as under:
"I know Majid since 1 - 1½ year from the date of incident. He is a battery mechanic. On 01.03.2015 at about 4.30 p.m., Majid was taking me to his house for whitewashing. At about 5.00 p.m., we reached at ganda nala in Ganga Vihar. There was a crowd. We started watching the crowd. Police officials were dispersing the crowd with sticks. Police officials caught Majid. When I asked him as to why they had apprehended Majid, police officials told me that they will release him after enquiry. I went to my house."FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 5 of 20
Defence arguments:
11. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that there are material contradictions in the depositions of PW-1 Kirno and PW-4 Balraj. He submitted that PW-1 Kirno, in her statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., stated that the accused had taken Balraj with him from her house. He submitted that PW-1 Kirno, in her deposition, stated that Balraj was returning from his work after drawing an amount of Rs. 16,000/- from bank. He submitted that the injured Balraj stated that he was returning from a mobile shop in Shiv Vihar and he was carrying Rs. 15,000/-. He submitted that the injured Balraj, in his cross-examination, stated that he had taken Rs. 15,500/- from his house and that the said amount comprised his salary and amount kept by him in his house. He submitted that the story of the prosecution that the accused called Balraj from his house could not be established.
12. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that PW-1 Kirno stated that she was informed by some public persons that someone stabbed Balraj with knife in F-Block, Ganga Vihar near drain, Delhi. He submitted that she denied that PW-16 Rahul informed her about the incident. He submitted that she stated that PW-16 Rahul was present at the spot when she reached there. He submitted that PW-16 Rahul categorically stated that he alongwith PW-1 Kirno came to the spot. He submitted that the mode of receipt of information about the offence by PW-1 Kirno also not established.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 6 of 2013. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove requisite intention or knowledge by direct and clinching evidence. He submitted that according to PW-4 Balraj, the motive for the offence was to rob Rs. 15,500/- from him. He submitted that the accused was apprehended on the spot and nothing was recovered from him. He submitted that the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that PW-4 Balraj had withdrawn any amount from any bank. He submitted that it has never been the case of the prosecution that PW-4 Balraj was subjected to stabbing in connection with any incident of robbery. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for the offence.
14. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that the accused was apprehended on the spot but neither any amount nor the knife used in the offence was recovered from him. He submitted that seizure of blue jeans from the accused is doubtful. He submitted that PW-1 Kirno stated that the accused was arrested in her presence. He submitted that arrest Ex.PW6/A does not bear signature of PW- 1 Kirno. He submitted that PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh stated that he does not remember as to who brought the pant from police station which was given to the accused. He submitted that PW- 6 Ct. Kunji Lal stated that PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh arranged a pant from some public persons whereas PW-15 Ct. Mukesh stated that one Arshad brought a pant for the accused.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 7 of 2015. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that PW-16 Rahul was an eye witness to the incident. He submitted that PW-16 Rahul has not supported the case of the prosecution. He submitted that PW-16 Rahul categorically stated that he had not seen the accused stabbing the injured Balraj. He submitted that the prosecution did not examine any public witness to prove the incident. He submitted that in view of material contradictions, as argued above, and absence of public witness to prove the incident, the prosecution case is highly doubtful and therefore, the accused is entitled to acquittal. He submitted that Investigating Officer did not conduct fair investigation. He submitted that IO did not make any effort to recover the weapon of offence from the drain. He submitted that IO did not join any public witness to search and seizure proceedings. He submitted that IO had not obtained signature of PW-1 Kirno and Ct. Mukesh on any document relating to arrest and seizure. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. He relied on following judgements:
(i) Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068;
(ii) State of U.P. v. Smt. Chandrawati, AIR 1998 SC 2930;
(iii) Balkar Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1133;
(iv) Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 3883;
(v) Krishnavtar Sharma v. State of M.P., 1983 (2) CRIMES 865;
(vi) State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Amit & Anr., 2016 [3] JCC 1667;
(vii) Sumersinbh Umedsinh Rajput v. State of Gujarat, (2007) 13 SCC 83;FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 8 of 20
Prosecution arguments:
16. Sh. I.H. Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that PW-4 Balraj is an injured witness. He submitted that he categorically deposed that the accused stabbed knife on his stomach, hand, face, neck and other parts of the body. He submitted that injury report Ex.PW2/A proved that PW-4 Balraj had multiple stab injuries on his abdomen, hand and face. He submitted that PW-4 Balraj had no enmity with the accused. He submitted that the injuries sustained by him were 'grievous and life endangering'. He submitted that an injured person who battled for life would not spare real offender and implicate an innocent person. He submitted that the accused was apprehended on the spot. He submitted that the accused was beaten by the public and injury report Ex.PW17/E proved that the accused had injuries on his person. He submitted that blood of the injured Balraj was found on the jeans pant Ex.Art.5 worn by the accused at the time of incident. He submitted that minor contradictions or inconsistencies which do not effect the core of the prosecution case are insignificant. He submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge. Analysis and conclusion:
17. PW-4 Balraj is an injured witness.
18. On 01.03.2015 at 5.40 p.m., PW-2 Dr. Sushil, Casualty Medical Officer (CMO), GTB Hospital examined him. After primary treatment, he referred him to surgery for further management. He prepared MLC Ex.PW2/A. FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 9 of 20
19. MLC Ex.PW2/A states that PW-4 Balraj had following injuries:
(i) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm lateral to midline at lower ribcage right side;
(ii) 1 x 1 cm incised wound lateral to right nipple;
(iii) 1 x .5 cm incised wound 5 cm lateral to the left nipple;
(iv) 1 x 1 cm wound on left anterior axillary line;
(v) 1 x 1 cm incised wound 5 cm below umbilicus;
(vi) 3 x 1 cm incised wound on right forearm;
(vii) Lacerated wound 5 x 4 cm on right forearm;
(viii) 1 x 1 cm on posterior aspect of right arm;
(ix) Abrasion on left forearm;
(x) 5 x 1 cm wound on posterior aspect left arm and
(xi) Incised wound of .5 cm on left nose.
20. PW-10 Dr. Vivek, Senior Resident, Deptt. of Surgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi examined the injured Balraj. He admitted the injured Balraj in surgery (Emergency) vide endorsement Ex.PW10/A. He found following injuries on the person of the injured Balraj:
(1) 2 x 1 cm, incised looking wound present 1 cm, medial to mid clavicular line right side just below nipple in fifth inter costalspace.
(2) Incised looking wound 3 x 2 cm, in the epigastrium 1 cm below xiphisternum.
(3) 1 x 2 cm, incised looking wound 4 cm, below umbilicus in mid line.
(4) 1 x 1 cm, incised looking wound medial to anterior axillary line left side about 1 cm, below nipple. (5) 1 x 2 cm, incised looking wound left hypochondrium about 3 cm, medial to anterior axillary line approximately 2 cm, above umbilicus level. (6) 1 x 2 cm, incised looking wound over the dorsal aspect of left forearm approximately 6 cm, proximal to wrist joint.
(7) 2 x 1 cm, incised looking wound over the dorsal aspect left forearm about 1 cm, distal to elbow joint.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 10 of 20 (8) 4 x 3 cm, incised looking wound over the palmer aspect of right forearm approximately 2 cm, proximal to wrist joint.
(9) 3 x 1 cm, incised looking wound right forearm approximately 2 cm, proximal to wrist joint palmer aspect.
(10) 2 x 1 cm, incised looking wound over the right forearm near palmer aspect.
(11) 1 x 2 cm, incised looking wound over the left neck lateral aspect 2 cm, below angle of mandible. (12) 1 x 2 cm, incised looking wound in the left upper lip and left nostril.
21. PW-9 Dr. Abhilash Singh, Senior Resident, Surgery, GTB Hospital conducted operation on the injured Balraj between 9.00 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. in the intervening night of 01/02.03.2015. He deposed that the injured Balraj had multiple stab injuries over his abdomen, neck, chest and arms. He did exploratory laparotomy with evacuation of haematoma and primary repair of jejunal perforation. He estimated 200 ml. blood loss. He did suturing of stab injuries over abdomen, chest, neck and arms. His operative findings, as recorded in operation record Ex.PW9/A, are as under:
(1) Multiple haematoma present along stab below epigastrium.
(2) Two jejunal perforations of 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 1 ft from DJ flexure at mesentric and anti mesentric border. (3) Two jejunal perforation of 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 2 ft from DJ flexure.
22. Law has accorded special status to an injured witness. Presence of injuries is an inbuilt guarantee of the presence of the injured at the place of incident. He is not likely to allow the real offender to go scot free and implicate an innocent person.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 11 of 20
23. PW-4 Balraj sustained 'grievous and life endangering injuries'. PW-8 Dr. Dheer, Senior Resident, Department of Surgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi provided post- operative care to the injured Balraj from 03.03.2015 to 10.03.2015. He given opinion that nature of injuries sustained by the injured Balraj was 'grievous' vide endorsement ExPW8/C. He deposed that the injuries i.e. 1 x 2 cm incised looking wound approx. about 2 cm above umbilicus was life endangering injury. He ruled out the possibility that such injuries could be self-inflicted. He deposed that it was a case of high velocity force as an sharp edged object could not pierce skin. He deposed that it was highly unlikely that such injuries could be self-inflicted. He deposed that it was not a case of fall on any sharp edged object as there were multiple injuries.
24. PW-4 Balraj sustained 'grievous and life endangering injuries'. He was operated and underwent exploratory laparotomy for repair of his intestine. He would not deposed against an innocent person and allow the offender to escape from his illegal act.
25. In 'Jodhan vs. State of M.P.', Crl. Appeal No. 1683 of 2010 decided on 08.04.2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"22. From the aforesaid summarization of the legal principles, it is beyond doubt that the testimony of the injured witness has its own significance and it has to be placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 12 of 20 As has been stated, the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him as an inbuilt-guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence. Thus perceived, we really do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the evidence of the injured witnesses have been appositely discarded being treated as untrustworthy by the learned trial Judge."
26. In 'Vijay & Anr. vs. State', Crl. A. No. 83/2000 decided on 15.09.2015, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
"59.....It is well settled that the testimony of a witness, who is himself injured in the incident about which he deposes comes with an in-built assurance as to his presence at the scene of crime also for the reason he is unlikely to spare the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else [Inder Singh & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan 2015 (2) SCC (Cri.) 215, Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of MP 2010 (10) SCC 259 and Sheesh Ram (supra)]."
27. PW-4 Balraj categorically deposed that the accused stabbed knife on his stomach, hand, face, neck and other parts of his body. He shown injuries sustained by him, as mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW2/A before the Court. He deposed that the said injuries were caused to him with a knife. He deposed that the accused present in the Court is the person who had caused the said injuries to him with a knife. He deposed that the accused attacked 15/20 times with knife and he saved some of the attacks. He identified his clothes torn T-shirt Ex.Art.1, torn vest Ex.Art.2 and torn sweater Ex.Art.3. FSL report Ex.PW14/A proved that the said clothes had blood of the blood group of the injured Balraj.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 13 of 20
28. PW-4 Balraj was cross-examined. The defence could not elicit anything from his cross-examination. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not inflict injury on his body.
29. PW-4 Balraj had no previous enmity with the accused. He met him first time on the date of incident. He deposed that the accused was not known to him before the date of incident. He deposed that the accused met him on that day for the first time. The accused, in his examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., has stated that he had no previous enmity with the injured Balraj. The defence did not attribute any motive to the injured Balraj for falsely identifying him as an offender before the Court. The accused stated that the injured Balraj identified him at the instance of PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh. The defence has not suggested any reason or enmity between PW- 17 ASI Hukam Singh and the accused.
30. PW-4 Balraj would not stand to any advantage by suffering as many as 12 injuries and majority of the injuries, were on vital part of his body with a knife by faking the incident. There is nothing in his cross-examination which can render him not worthy of credit or trust. Testimony of PW-4 Balraj is creditworthy and reliable.
31. PW-4 Balraj is corroborated by the medical evidence, as discussed above.
32. PW-4 Balraj received corroboration from PW-1 Kirno and PW-5 HC Pradeep Kumar, In-charge, PCR Van so far as the place of incident and presence of injuries is concerned.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 14 of 20
33. PW-1 Kirno is mother of the injured Balraj. She went to the place of incident. She deposed that when she reached at the spot, she found that her son Balraj was lying there in injured condition and public persons were beating the accused.
34. PW-5 HC Pradeep Kumar, In-charge, PCR Van deposed that on 01.03.2015 at about 4.45 p.m., he received a call from control room regarding quarrel in Gali No. 2, Ganga Vihar, opposite pipe-line. He stated that he reached at the place of incident. He deposed that a person was lying there in injured condition. He deposed that the said person had stabbed injuries with a knife at several places on his abdomen. He deposed that he shifted the injured to GTB Hospital through PCR Van. At about 5.40 p.m., he admitted the injured in the Emergency, GTB Hospital.
35. The accused has not disputed his presence at the place of incident. His defence is that he was apprehended by the police and implicated in this case. PW-1 Kirno deposed that public persons were beating the accused. She identified the accused before the Court. She denied the suggestion that the accused was present in the crowd and he was helping the injured Balraj. PW-5 HC Pradeep Kumar corroborated her. He deposed that the public persons were holding the accused. He identified the accused before the Court. He handed over the accused to PW-17 ASI Hukam Singh who reached at the place of incident alongwith PW-6 Ct. Kunji Lal Meena. PW-15 Ct. Mukesh also identified the accused before the Court.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 15 of 20
36. The accused, in his examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., taken the plea that on 01.03.2015, he was going with DW-1 Ram Singh to his elder brother's house namely Arshad in Bhagirathi Vihar, Phase-II. His plea was that when he reached near the place of incident, he had seen several persons gathered there and in the meantime, police officials were trying to disperse the crowd and in that process, one of the police officials wrongly apprehended him. He examined Ram Singh as DW-1 on this aspect. Regarding presence of injuries on his body, he stated that the police had beaten him.
37. It would be relevant to state that PW-1 Kirno reached at the place of incident before arrival of PCR Van. According to PW-1 Kirno, the accused was already apprehended by the public and beaten by the public. PW-1 Kirno denied the suggestion that the accused was present in the crowd and helping the injured Balraj. The accused did not make any suggestion to PW-5 HC Pradeep Kumar that he was not caught by the public but he was caught by him. He did not make any suggestion to PW-5 HC Pradeep Kumar and any other police witnesses that they had beaten him after apprehension from the spot. The defence did not make any suggestion to any witness that he alongwith DW-1 Ram Singh was passing-by and apprehended by the police and implicated in this case. DW-1 Ram Singh did not make any complaint to any senior officers of police regarding false implication of the accused. The defence is an afterthought and hence rejected.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 16 of 20
38. PW-16 Rahul, according to the prosecution, was an eye witness. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, his evidence is relevant to the extant that he had seen Balraj in injured condition at the place of incident. He went to call PW-1 Kirno who came to the place of incident with him.
39. PW-18 Dr. Vinay Kumar, Casualty Medical Officer (CMO) examined the accused vide MLC Ex.PW17/E. He observed an abrasion on ventral surface of left hand and tenderness of left hand dorsal surface of the accused. The accused given explanation for the presence of the said injuries on his person that he was beaten by the police. He had not made any suggestion to any police witness on this aspect.
40. The contentions raised by the defence on the aspects that there were contradictions in the testimonies of PW- 1 Kirno and PW-4 Balraj on the aspect that PW-4 Balraj was carrying an amount of Rs. 15,500/- with him and motive of the offence are causing dent to the prosecution case on its fringes. Such contradictions have no impact on the core of the prosecution case that the accused stabbed the injured Balraj several times in abdomen and other parts of his body.
41. In the presence of direct evidence of PW-4 Balraj, the fact that PW-16 Rahul did not support the case of the prosecution is insignificant.
42. Though there are contradictions regarding the arrangement of pant for the accused, however, the accused was no where taken from the place of incident before seizure.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 17 of 20
43. There is evidence in the testimonies of PW-6 Ct. Kunji Lal Meena that the jeans pant Ex.Art.5 which was found to be stained with blood of PW-4 Balraj was worn by the accused at the time of his apprehension.
44. As regards contention that the time of incident is mentioned as 2.30 p.m. in the MLC Ex.PW2/A is concerned, it can be stated that such minor time variation is not relevant. Moreover, the attention of PW-4 Balraj was not invited to the said MLC in order to seek his explanation regarding variation of time of the incident in MLC Ex.PW2/A.
45. As regards contention that Investigating Officer did not make adequate efforts to recover the weapon of offence from the drain, it can be stated that negligence of an Investigating Officer would not be a ground to doubt otherwise credible case of the prosecution. Moreover, non-recovery of a weapon of offence is not significant.
46. On thoughtful consideration of the evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused stabbed the injured Balraj in his abdomen several times with a knife and caused injuries to his abdomen, face, neck and arms, as detailed in MLC Ex.PW2/A.
47. It has been discussed above that the accused caused multiple injuries on abdomen of the injured Balraj. According to MLC Ex.PW2/A, there were as many as three injuries in the abdominal region and two injuries on right nipple and left nipple of the injured Balraj.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 18 of 20
48. According to MLC Ex.PW2/A, there were 11 incised wound on the several parts of body of the injured Balraj.
49. The injuries to the abdominal region and particularly injury No. 5 i.e. 1 x 2 cm incised looking wound on left hypochondrium about 3 cm medial to anterior axillary line about 2 cm above umbilicus was 'life endangering'. PW-8 Dr. Dheer opined that the injuries sustained by the injured Balraj were 'grievous'. All the injuries were fresh and caused with a sharp edged object. The injured Balraj underwent an operation on 9.00 p.m. of 01.03.2015. There was multiple haematoma present below epigastrium. There were two jejunal perforations in the abdominal region. Exploratory laparotomy was conducted in order to repair jejunal perforations. It was a case of high velocity force as ordinarily, a sharp edged object cannot pierce the skin.
50. Given by the number of injuries, nature of injuries, force with which the injuries were caused, vital parts of the body including abdominal region and nature of weapon, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the accused caused the said injuries with the intention to cause death of the injured Balraj and in any eventuality, requisite knowledge that such bodily injuries were likely to cause death as defined in clause (2) of Section 300 IPC can be attributed.
51. The accused caused the said injuries to the injured Balraj with the intention to cause his death and therefore, he attempted to cause murder of the injured Balraj.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 19 of 20 Conclusion:
52. The prosecution has been able to prove the charge under section 307 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt.
53. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty for committing offence under section 307 IPC.
54. Copy of the judgement given to the accused.
Announced in the open court SANJAY SHARMA on this 16th day of December, 2016. Special Judge NDPS (North-East) ASJ:KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 202/2015 State Vs. Majid Page No. 20 of 20