Delhi District Court
State vs Praveen @Toni on 30 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03/SPECIAL JUDGE (COMPANIES
ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
More than seven years old case
CNR No. : DLSW01-011866-2019
SC No. : 764/2019
State Vs. : Parveen @ Toni
FIR No. : 148/2017
P.S. : Dwarka Sector-23
U/S : 308/323 IPC
1. Date of commission of offence : 01.06.2017
2. Date of institution of the case : 26.03.2019
3. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 11.10.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Sh. Santosh Kumar
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : Parveen @ Toni
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o H. No.184,
VPO Bijwasan, Delhi.
6. Offences under which charges
were framed : 308/323 IPC
7. Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which arguments heard : 25.01.2025
9. Date of final order : 30.01.2025
10. Final order : Convicted
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 1 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. The criminal law machinery was set into motion on receiving DD No. 4A dated 01.06.2017, PS Dwarka Sector 23 in which it was recorded that caller had been stabbed by someone near Bharthal Mota Dada Dev Mandir. The said DD was marked to SI Vijay Pal, who along with HC Joginder reached at the spot i.e. empty field adjacent to the road going from Bharthal to Bamnoli. One Kaushal i.e. friend of the injured met SI Vijay Pal at the spot and informed that injured Santosh (friend of Kaushal) had been shifted to hospital in an ambulance. In the meanwhile, SI Vijay Pal received another DD No.6B dated 01.06.2017, PS Dwarka Sector 23 regarding hospitalization of injured Santosh at DDU Hospital.
2. SI Vijay Pal left HC Jogender at the spot and he went to DDU hospital where he found injured Santosh admitted there. His MLC was checked and the doctor opined that the injured was under observation and the weapon used to inflict injuries upon Santosh was opined to be sharp. Injured was stated to be fit to give statement. The statement of injured Santosh was recorded by SI Vijay Pal wherein he stated that he was a taxi driver and he was residing as a tenant in the house of accused Praveen Kumar @ Toni along with his wife and the minor daughter. Prior to the incident, complainant had seen the accused in his room along with his wife once or twice. On 31.05.2017, in the night, he along with his friend Kaushal and accused were coming back home along with the complainant in his taxi car No. PB-01B-3391. At around 2.00 AM, he along with Kaushal alighted his taxi at the road between Bharthal and Bamnoli, near Neem Tree and started drinking SC No.764/2019 Page No. 2 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 liquor. Accused also joined them. Complainant told the accused that he had spoiled his house and he should have not come near his wife. Accused got angry on the same and scuffled took place between them. Accused brought vegetable knife from the car and stabbed the complainant in his stomach due to which blood started oozing out. While Kaushal was trying to pacify them, he also sustained injuries. Accused fled away from the spot.
3. SI Vijay Pal seized the blood stained shirt of the injured which was duly sealed with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital. Thereafter, he came back at the spot and crime team was called. Spot was inspected by the crime team.
4. On the basis of complaint given by injured Santosh, SI Vijay Pal prepared rukka and got the FIR under Section 308 IPC registered through HC Joginder. Thereafter HC Joginder came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to SI Vijay Pal pursuant to which he lifted the exhibits from the spot i.e. one stone of cement and concrete, blood lying on the spot and earth control, all these exhibits were seized by him and were duly sealed with the seal of VP. One plastic disposable glass, two empty Halidiram salted peanuts wrappers, one empty Halidiram hing chana wrapper, four buttons of a shirt, bunch of hair which were lying at the spot were also kept in different pulandas which were sealed with the seal of VP. One broken handle of knife was also lying on the spot which was also duly sealed. SI Vijay Pal prepared the site plan at the instance of Kaushal. One fiat Punto car was also seized from near Seema Clinic Kapashera, Bijwasan by SI Vijay Pal. The case property was deposited on the SC No.764/2019 Page No. 3 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 Malkhana. He recorded the statement of witnesses.
5. On 02.06.2017, he along with Ct. Mahesh went in search of the accused and accused was arrested from his house. His personal search was conducted. He tried to search the front portion of the knife by taking the accused near the spot but the same could not be found. Accused was medically examined and his blood sample was taken. The exhibits were sent to FSL.
6. After completion of investigation, Chargesheet was prepared and filed in the Court. After compliance of section 207/208 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charges
7. Charge under Section 308/323 IPC was framed against accused on 20.01.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
8. Prosecution cited as many as 18 witnesses out of which 14 witnesses have been examined. Statement of accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded on 20.09.2023 and 10.01.2025 wherein he admitted the FIR No.148/2017; certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act; DD No.4A dated 01.06.2017, DD No.6B dated 01.06.2017; Medical Examination No. 7146 of Kaushal of DDU Hospital; MLC No. 004227 of injured Santosh Kumar of DDU Hospital, M.E. No.7194; FSL Report No.2017/B-9193 dated 29.12.2017; FSL Report dated 14.11.2018 and X-ray report dated 01.06.2017 of injured Santosh Kumar as Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX10. The witnesses pertaining to these documents i.e. witnesses mentioned at SC No.764/2019 Page No. 4 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 Serial No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the list of prosecution witnesses, were dropped.
9. PW-1 Sh. Santosh Kumar is the complainant/injured. He deposed as under:
"Ram Kumar was my landlord. At the time of incident, I used to reside at Village Bijwasan, Budh Bazar, Delhi since last 3-4 years from the date of incident. I am the permanent residence of above mentioned address of U.P. At the time of incident, I was working as taxi driver. Accused Praveen is the son of my landlord Ram Kumar. Accused asked me to drive his taxi in partnership. While I was driving the taxi of the accused, after about 1 - 1.5 month, the said taxi met with an accident and at that time I was driving the said taxi. The taxi was repaired in 10-15 days. After about 1 - 1.5 month, the said taxi again got met with an accident and at that time accused Praveen was driving the taxi. Accused waited for 15 days for getting insurance amount. One day, I saw accused in my room with my wife. Accused folded hands in front of me and requested me not to tell this fact to anyone. I send my wife and my children to my house in U.P. Thereafter, I was still an employee of accused and used to drive his taxi and nothing changed.
After about 10-15 days, I along with Kaushal who was my neighbour, went for a ride and to drink liquor and we reached near Mote Dada Mandir, Bamdoli. We started drinking there. Again said, I along with Kaushal and accused Praveen went in the taxi.
I was having some monetary talks with the accused regarding my salary. Father of accused used to torture me for the demand of rent. I went into a scuffle with accused and accused started abusing me. There was a knife in the car. Accused Praveen took the said knife and gave me a knife blow and while saving myself, I got a cut on my right hand and during the scuffle I got another knife blow in my stomach by accused. The incident took place near the car in open ground at about 12:00 Midnight. I do not remember the date of incident.
I made a call at 100 number from my mobile phone. Within SC No.764/2019 Page No. 5 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 15-20 minutes, PCR reached at the spot. Both Kaushal and Praveen ran away from the spot. Police shifted me to DDU Hospital, where my statement was recorded by IO, same is now Ex.PW1/A bears my signature at point A. I was admitted in the hospital for 2 days. After 2 days, I came to PS Dwarka Sector 23 to know about the case. I stayed in the room for about 3-4 days. I requested the accused to let me vacate the room but he did not permitted me. After one week, I vacated my room with the help of my near and dear ones. Some of my articles were left in the room.
Accused Praveen is present in the Court today (Correctly identified).
I can identify the taxi, if shown to me.
At this stage, photographs of taxi bearing no. PB-01-B-3391 are shown to witness and witness correctly identified the same, same are now Ex.P1 (Colly)."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
10. PW-2 Sh. Kaushal is another injured. He deposed as under:
"I do not remember the date of incident. I used to reside in a room situated adjacent to the room of Santosh. Manohar was my landlord. Santosh brought a new car and I along with Santosh and accused, who is present in the Court today (correctly identified) went for a party. The name of accused is Praveen @ Toni. We went for a party in the middle of Barthal and Bijwasan. It was about 12:00 Midnight - 01:00 AM and we were drinking at that time. I received a call from my house and I went aside. In the meanwhile, Santosh took a stone and also a knife tried to hit Praveen @ Toni. In the meanwhile, accused Toni took out the knife. Again said, Santosh took out the knife.
A scuffle took place between the Santosh and accused Praveen. Santosh received injuries in his stomach, Praveen sustained injuries on his legs and I sustained injuries on my shoulder. Santosh made a call to police. Praveen ran away from spot in the car. Police reached at the spot. I narrated the entire incident to police. My statement was recorded by police."SC No.764/2019 Page No. 6 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 Since PW-2 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but nothing incriminating came in the cross examination of PW-2 conducted by ld. Addl. PP for the State.
11. PW-3 Sh. Gaganpreet Singh Dhillon deposed as under:
"I am a transporter by profession. I am the registered owner of Fiat Punto bearing registration No.PB-01-B-3391. I had purchased the said car in January, 2017. the said car is having a commercial number/taxi number. I had given the said car to accused Praveen @ Toni as he had got my car hired to Convergis at Gurugram. I had handed over him the said car just after purchasing the same. I can identify my car if shown to me.
At this stage, the photographs of Fiat Punto bearing registration No.PB-01-B-3391, which are already exhibited as Ex.PW1/B (Colly.) are shown to the witness and witness identifies the same.
I had got released the said car on superdari vide superdarinama which is Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at point-A on each page."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
12. PW-4 HC Sandeep Kumar deposed as under:
"On 03.06.2017 I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector-23. On that day, I joined the investigation of this case alongwith IO/SI Vijay Pal. During investigation, I went to DDU Hospital alongwith accused Parveen @ Toni where medical examination of accused was got conducted. The blood sample of accused was preserved by the concerned doctor and the same was handed over by the concerned doctor to me. I alongwith the accused came to Dwarka Courts and the accused was produced before the concerned Magistrate where the accused was remanded to judicial custody. The blood sample of accused was handed over to the IO by me at Dwarka Court which was seized by the IO vide seizure SC No.764/2019 Page No. 7 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 memo Ex.PW4/A bearing my signature at point-A. Accused Parveen @ Toni is present in the court today (correctly identified). My statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded by the IO."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
13. PW-5 HC Amrik Singh deposed as under:
"On 28.11.2017, I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector 23 Dwarka as Constable. On that day, I was directed by the IO/SI Vijay Pal to go to FSL Rohini for depositing the case property. I took the case property from the MHC(M) along with road certificate No. 76/21/17 and deposited the same to the FSL Rohini for examination. I was also given an acknowledgment receipt of the same. The said receipt is Mark X. During the time the case property was in my possession, it was in my safe custody and it was not tampered at any point of time.
Thereafter, I came back to the PS and handed over the receipt and copy of road certificate to the MHC(M). The copy of said road certificate is Ex.PW5/A. My statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
14. PW-6 HC Satish deposed as under:
"On 04.04.2018, I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector 23 Dwarka as Constable. On that day, I was directed by the IO/SI Vijay Pal to go to FSL Rohini for depositing the case property. I took the case property from the MHC(M) along with road certificate No. 35/21/18 and deposited the same to the FSL Rohini for examination. I was also given an acknowledgment receipt of the same. During the time the case property was in my possession, it was in my safe custody and it was not tampered at any point of time. Thereafter, I came back to the PS and handed over the receipt and copy of road certificate to the MHC(M). The copy of said road certificate is Ex.PW6/A. My statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 8 of 30State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
15. PW-7 ASI Samunder Singh deposed as under:
"On 01.06.2017, I was posted as MHC(M) at PS Dwarka Sector 23. On that day, SI Vijay Pal handed over the case property of the present case. IO deposited the said case property i.e. two parcels and one sample seal in the Malkhana vide MUD No. 1976. On the same day, SI Vijay Pal also deposited a car bearing registration No. PB-01B-3391 in the malkhana vide MUD No. 1978. On the same day, another case property in a sealed condition which was also deposited by SI Vijay Pal vide MUD No. 1978. On 03.06.2017, SI Vijay Pal again handed over the case property i.e. clothes of the accused and some plastic box. Same were deposited in the malkhana vide MUD No. 1980. On 28.11.2017, total seven parcels were sent to FSL for its examination through Const. Amreek vide RC No. 76/21/17. On the same day, during evening hours, Const. Amreek came back to the PS and handed over to me receipt No. 9133. On 22.01.2018, I went to RFSL, Chanakya Puri and got seven parcels from there and deposited the same in malkhana.
Today, I have brought the relevant record. MUD No. 1976, 1978 and 1980 are Ex.PW7/A (OSR) (colly). The Road Certificate No. 76/21/17 is Ex.PW7/B (OSR) bearing my signature at point A. The receipt of the acknowledgement of the case property by FSL is Ex.PW7/C. "
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
16. PW-8 Dr. Dinesh Varshney deposed as under:
"I am posted in DDU Hospital since August 2011. Presently, I am working there as Senior Medical Officer. On 01.06.2017, I was posted at DDU Hospital as Casualty Medical Officer and Dr. Jalaj, who was working as Junior Resident in the hospital under my supervision. I can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Jalaj as I have seen him writing and signing in due course of his duties. The MLC No. 7146 of injured Kaushal is in the handwriting of Dr. Jalaj and bears his signature at point A. The said MLC also bears my name at point B. The said MLC is already Ex. PX5.
Dr. Jalaj had left the hospital and his whereabouts is not known to me. "SC No.764/2019 Page No. 9 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
17. PW-9 Ct. Mahesh Kumar deposed as under:
"On 02.06.2017, I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector 23. On that day, I joined investigation of the present case along with IO/SI Vijay Pal. I along with IO/SI Vijay Pal went to Bijwasan Village at H. No. 184, near Masjid there we saw accused Praveen @ Toni. He was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A bearing my signature at point A. Information of his arrest was given to his father. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/B bearing my signature at point A. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by the IO. Accused was taken to DDU Hospital where his medical examination got conducted. He was produced before the concerned court and his one day PC remand was taken by the IO. Weapon of offence i.e. broken knife was searched but it was not traceable. My statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO. Accused Praveen @ Toni is present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. "
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
18. PW-10 HC Joginder Singh deposed as under:
"In the intervening night of 31.05/01.06.2017, I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector 23. On that day, my duty timings were from 08:00 pm to 8:00 am. I was on emergency duty along with SI Vijay Pal. At about 3:00 am, he received a call regarding a person injured on the Bharthal-Bamnoli road and having knife stab injuries. I along with IO reached the spot. We came to know that one of the injured had already been shifted to hospital. There we met another person who told us that he is friend of injured who was also in injured condition. From the spot, it was clear that a quarrel had taken place at the spot. There were broken glasses, empty packets of namkeen and blood spots were there at 2-3 spots. One stone was also found lying there having blood stains on it. Broken buttons of the shirt and hairs of a human being were also found lying at the spot. One handle of a knife of black colour was also found lying at the spot. I remained at the spot and IO along with the friend of injured went to the hospital. After some time, IO along with both the injured persons reached the spot. IO prepared the rukka and sent me SC No.764/2019 Page No. 10 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 to PS for registration of FIR.
Thereafter, I went to the PS and handed over the rukka to DO. DO handed over me copy of FIR and the original rukka to me. I again came back to the spot and handed over both the documents to the IO. Site-plan was prepared by the IO at the instance of the complainant, same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at point A. Sketch of the knife was prepared in my presence vide memo Ex.PW10/B bearing my signature at point A. A stone having blood stains, earth control and blood stained earth were seized by the IO in my presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C bearing my signature at point A. One disposal glass and haldiram namkeen salted peanut packets, haldiram moong heeng chana packets, broken buttons of shirt and hairs lying at the spot were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D bearing my signature at point A. The handle of the knife was seized by the IO in my presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/E bearing my signature at point A. My statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO.
The car bearing registration No. PB 01B 3391 was seized by the IO in my presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F bearing my signature at point A. I can identify the car, if shown to me.
At this stage, photographs of the car bearing registration No. PB 01B 3391 are shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. The same are already Ex.PW1/B (colly). I can identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is white sealed cloth parcel No. 1 duly sealed with the seal of GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains blood stained stone. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is Ex. P-1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 2 duly sealed with the seal of GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains dark stained soil. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is Ex. P-2.SC No.764/2019 Page No. 11 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 3 duly sealed with the seal of GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the permission of the court and one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains earth control. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is Ex. P-3. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 4 duly sealed with the seal of GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains hairs found lying at the spot. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is Ex. P-4.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 05 duly sealed with the seal of GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains shirt. Witness states that he has no concern with the said case property.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 5 duly sealed with the seal of GC CH.Puri RFSL New Delhi. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains broken piece of knife/ handle. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is Ex. P-5."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
19. PW-11 Insp. Rakesh Kumar deposed as under:
"On 01.06.2017, I was posted at Incharge Mobile Crime Team, South West District, Sector 9, Dwarka. I received a call from control room at about 5:45 am and I was asked to reach on the road going towards Bamnoli to Dhulsiras, New Delhi. I along with Photographer Const. Rakesh, Fingerprint Expert ASI Nitin and Driver Const. Satpal reached the spot and found that blood was lying on the side of the road and on other places as well. Blood was also lying on the concrete stone. Some empty snacks packets, disposable plastic glass, buttons of the shirt, handle of a knife of black colour and bunch of hairs were lying there. I inspected the spot.SC No.764/2019 Page No. 12 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 Thereafter, photographer took the photographs of the crime scene. I prepared report No. 662/2017, same is Ex.PW11/A bearing my name and signature at point A. I suggested the IO to lift the exhibits from the spot. Thereafter I went to my office. My statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO.
At this stage, photographs of the spot are shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. The photographs (14 in number) are Ex.PW11/B (colly). Witness states that the said photographs were clicked by Ct. Rakesh. "
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
20. PW-12 HC Rakesh Kumar deposed as under:
"On 01.06.2017 I was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, South West District, Sector-9, Dwarka. On that day, Incharge SI Rakesh received a call from the Control Room. Thereafter, I alongwith SI Rakesh, driver and one fingerprint expert went to the spot i.e. DDA land on the road going from Barthal to Bamnauli. I took photographs of the spot from different angles. The photographs were handed over to the IO. Today I have brought the negatives of the said photographs. I can identify the said photographs, if shown to me.
At this stage, photographs Ex.PW11/B are shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. The negatives of the said photographs are now exhibited as Ex.PW12/A (colly). "
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
21. PW-13 Insp. Vijay Pal is the investigating officer. He deposed as under:
"On the intervening night of 31st May and 01st June, 2017 I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector-23 as Sub-Inspector and was on night emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. I received DD No.4A with regard to person sustaining stab injuries. I alongwith HC Joginder reached the spot i.e. on an empty field adjacent to the road going from Barthal to Bamnauli. There we met Kaushal Kumar who informed me SC No.764/2019 Page No. 13 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 that his friend Santosh Kumar had sustained stab injuries and had been shifted to hospital in an ambulance. I also received DD No.6B with regard to the injured Santosh admitted in DDU hospital. I left HC Joginder at the spot and I went to DDU hospital where I found injured Santosh Kumar admitted there. His MLC was checked and the doctor opined the nature of injuries 'under observation' and kind of weapon as 'sharp'. I moved an application to the concerned doctor to know whether the patient was fit to give statement, to which the doctor opined in affirmative. The said application is Ex.PW13/A bearing my signature at point-A. Thereafter, I recorded statement of injured Santosh. I seized the exhibits i.e. blood stained blue shirt and one pullanda containing blood in gauge piece in sealed condition with seal of CMO DDU hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B bearing my signature at point-A. Thereafter, I came back to the spot. Crime team was called at the spot. Spot was inspected by the crime team. I prepared a rukka which is Ex.PW13/C bearing my signature at point-A. The rukka was handed over to HC Joginder who went to the PS for registration of FIR. After some time, HC Joginder came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to me. Thereafter, I lifted exhibits from the spot i.e. one stone of cement and concrete, blood lying at the spot, earth control and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/C bearing my signature at point-B. All the said case property were sealed in different pullandas with the seal of 'VP'. One plastic disposal glass, two empty haldiram salted peanut wrappers, one empty haldiram hing chana wrapper, four buttons of a shirt, a bunch of hair, which were lying at the spot, were kept in different pullandas, sealed with the seal of VP and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D bearing my signature at point-B. One broken handle of knife was lying at the spot. The sketch of the same was prepared which is already exhibited as Ex.PW10/B bearing my signature at point-B. The same was seized vide memo Ex.PW10/E bearing my signature at point-B. Site plan Ex.PW10/B was prepared at the instance of Kaushal Kumar, which bears my signature at point-B. Accused was searched but he was not traceable. One Fiat Punto was recovered from near Seema Clinic, Kapashera, Bijwasan which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F bearing my signature at point-B. The case SC No.764/2019 Page No. 14 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 property was deposited in the malkhana. I recorded statement of witnesses.
On 02.06.2017 I alongwith Ct. Mahesh went in search of accused. We went to the house of accused Parveen @ Toni i.e. H.No.184, near Masjid, Village Bijwasan, New Delhi. I interrogated the accused Parveen @ Toni and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A bearing my signature at point- B. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/B bearing my signature at point-B. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded. I took the accused near the spot in search of metallic blade i.e. the front portion of the knife but the same was not found. After the medical examination of the accused, accused was produced before the concerned Court and one day PC remand of the accused was taken.
On 03.06.2017 accused was taken again for his medical examination where his blood sample was collected from DDU hospital in a pullanda duly sealed with the seal of 'CMO DDU Hosp. N.Delhi' which was seized by me vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A bearing my signature at point-B. Accused was produced before the concerned Court and was sent to J/C. The exhibits were sent to FSL. I recorded statement of the witnesses. I took steps to take opinion on the MLC but since the injured left the hospital against the medical advice, the opinion on the MLC could not be taken. The car was released on superdari. I can identify the Fiat Punto car if shown to me. At this stage, photograph of Fiat Punto car bearing Reg. No.PB01B3391 are shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. Same is already Ex.PW1/B (Colly).
Accused Parveen @ Toni is present in the Court today. (Correctly identified by the witness).
I can identify the photographs of the spot, if shown to me. At this stage, photographs Ex.PW11/B (Colly) are shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is white sealed cloth parcel No. 1 duly sealed with the seal of Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains blood stained stone. Witness correctly identifies the SC No.764/2019 Page No. 15 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 same as recovered from the spot. The same is already Ex. P-1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 2 duly sealed with the seal of Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains dark stained soil. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is already Ex. P-2. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 3 duly sealed with the seal of Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains earth control. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is already Ex. P-3. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 4 duly sealed with the seal of Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains one plastic box duly taped with a doctor tape. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains hairs found lying at the spot. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is already Ex. P-4. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced the case property. It is yellow envelope parcel No. 5 duly sealed with the seal of Court. Same is opened with the permission of the court and contains broken piece of knife/ handle. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the spot. The same is already Ex. P-5.
I prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the Court."
He was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for the accused.
22. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. An application under Section 311 Cr PC was moved by the Ld. Addl PP for the State in order to summons Dr Ankur Popat along with original MLC No.4227 dated 01.07.2017 of injured Santosh from DDU Hospital. The said application was allowed and Dr Ankur Popat was examined SC No.764/2019 Page No. 16 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 as PW-14.
23. PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat, Surgery consultant, Ankur Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana. He deposed as under:
"On the intervening night of 31.05.2017- 01.06.2017, he was posted as Sr. Resident, Surgery Department, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar and on that day, his duty timing were from 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM. He further deposed that at about 04.35 PM, patient Santosh Kumar came in causality and thereafter, he was referred to surgery department by Dr. Pallavi and he examined patient Santosh Kumar vide MLC no. 4227. He further deposed that on examination he found out that there was clean lacerated wound of size 2.5 X 0.5 cm elliptical in shape on left side chest alongwith skin loss over the right palm. He further deposed that on wound exploration, no pleural breach or rib facture was present, depth of the chest injury was approx 1 cm and patient was admitted for observation but he left against medical advise, hence, opinion was not given on the said MLC Ex. PW14/A(OSR) by him and in his opinion the nature of injuries were simple in nature.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC & Defence Evidence
24. Statement under Section 313 CPC of the accused was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence which came on record during the testimonies of prosecution witnesses has been put to him, which the accused denied and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by police. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Arguments on behalf of parties
25. Ld. Addl.PP for the State has argued that PW-1 Santosh Kumar (injured) has proved that accused had stabbed him in his stomach with a knife. Ld. Addl.PP has further argued that handle of the knife was recovered from the spot itself which also corroborates the testimony of PW-1. The testimony of PW-1 is further corroborated by the testimony SC No.764/2019 Page No. 17 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 of PW-2 Kaushal to the effect that injured was stabbed with a knife. He has further argued that MLC of the injured has been proved by PW-8 Dr. Dinesh Varshney and PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat. As per the testimony PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat, the nature of the injuries were simple in nature. Ld. Addl. PP has further argued that it is immaterial as to whether the injuries were simple or grievous. The intention of the accused while inflicting injuries have to be seen. He has further injuries that injuries were inflicted by the accused with a deadly weapon i.e. knife in his stomach i.e. vital part of the body of the injured and, therefore, the charges under section 307 IPC against the accused are clearly proved and he be convicted under section 307 IPC.
26. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has pointed out that simple reading of the testimony of PW-1 Santosh Kumar and PW-2 Kaushal clearly show that PW-1 Santosh was the aggressor. He further argued that testimony would reveal that he had taken PW-2 Kaushal and the accused in his car and he provoked the accused due to which the scuffle took place. Ld. Counsel has argued that there was no pre meditation and intention of the accused to inflict any kind of injuries upon the injured. Ld. Counsel has further argued that PW-13 Insp. Vijay Pal has deposed that site-plan was prepared at the instance of PW-2 Kaushal but the site-plan does not bear the signature of Kaushal. He has further argued that, in his cross-examination, PW-13 Insp. Vijay Kumar admitted that handle of the knife was lying at the spot and it was not seized at anybody's instance and was not shown to the complainant or his friend Kaushal. Ld. Counsel has further argued that prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and accused be acquitted.
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 18 of 30State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23
27. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record carefully.
28. The case of prosecution is based on ocular testimony. PW-1 is the injured himself and PW-2 is the friend of injured as well as eye- witness to the incident. The law relating to ocular testimony has been discussed in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2017 decided on 14.07.2022, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that :
"27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some SC No.764/2019 Page No. 19 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on SC No.764/2019 Page No. 20 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
29. In view of the parameters on which the testimony of eye witness is to be tested, as laid down above, the testimony of complainant / injured is hereinafter appreciated.
30. PW-1 is the injured and PW-2 Kaushal is the friend of the injured. Accused Praveen @ Toni is the son of his (injured) landlord Ram Kumar. PW-1 deposed that he saw accused Praveen @ Toni in his room with his wife before the alleged incident. PW-1 sent his wife SC No.764/2019 Page No. 21 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 and children to his native village. He continued to work as an employee of the accused and used to drive his taxi. None of these facts have been disputed or challenged in the cross examination of PW-1. There is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid deposition. Therefore, these facts stand proved leaving no room for doubt.
31. PW-1 had further deposed that on the date of incident, he (injured) along with his friend PW-2 Kaushal and accused Praveen @ Toni went in his taxi to take a ride and when they reached near Mota Dada Mandir, Bamnoli, they alighted the car and started drinking liquor on the road. The testimony of PW-2 also corroborates the deposition of PW-1 regarding this fact. PW-2 had deposed he along with injured and accused had gone for a ride on the date of incident and they stopped in the middle of Bharthal and Bijwasan and started drinking liquor there. PW-2 was not cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused. The aforesaid testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly proves beyond any doubt that on the date of incident, the injured, PW-2 Kaushal and accused Praveen @ Toni were present together and had drunk liquor in the middle of the road. PW-1 had further deposed that the he and the accused entered into the arguments about his salary due to which a scuffle took place and accused started abusing him. It is relevant to note that reason for scuffle mentioned in deposition of PW-1 was salary whereas in the tehrir Ex.PW1/A, the reason mentioned was the closeness of accused with wife of injured. But the fact remains that scuffle took place between them for some reason. No question/ suggestion denying the scuffle between injured and accused was put to PW-1. This testimony of PW-1 is further testified from the fortified from the testimony of PW-2 Kaushal, who also deposed that SC No.764/2019 Page No. 22 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 scuffle took place between accused and injured. PW-2 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. Hence this fact stands duly established.
32. PW-1 further deposed that there was a knife in the car and accused took out the knife and gave him a knife blow in his stomach and while saving himself, he (injured) also sustained a cut in his right hand. During his cross-examination, PW-1 was suggested that the accused was not present at the spot and injuries were inflicted upon him by PW-2 Kaushal with a knife, which was denied by him. No such suggestion of inflicting injuries by Kaushal were put to Kaushal, who deposed as PW-2. Merely giving this suggestion to PW-1 is inconsequential. The presence of the accused at the spot already stands proved as the deposition to the effect that all three of them (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) were together and had drunk liquor in the middle of the road has been duly established. PW-1 successfully withstood the rigours of cross-examination. The testimony of PW-1 is found to be cogent and reliable.
33. In respect of inflicting injuries, PW-2 had deposed that PW-1 took the stone and knife and tried to hit the accused and in the meanwhile, accused Praveen @ Toni also took out a knife and scuffle took place between injured Santosh and accused Praveen @ Toni. In the same breath, PW-2 changed his version and deposed that PW-1 took out the knife. The deposition of PW-2 that PW-1 took the knife and tried to hit the accused is not at all trustworthy as it is not even the defence of accused. Nowhere in the cross examination of PW-1, accused had taken a stand that PW-1 attempted to hit the accused with stone or a knife. The stand taken is that accused was not present and SC No.764/2019 Page No. 23 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 PW-2 had inflicted knife injuries upon PW-1. Therefore, this part of the testimony of PW-2 is insignificant. From the testimony of PW-2, following facts are clearly proved:
(1) Accused was present at the port along with PW-1 and PW-2. (2) Scuffle took place between accused and PW-1. (3) PW-1 sustained injuries in his stomach. (4) Knife was used to inflict injury upon PW-1.
No case of self infliction of injury by injured in his stomach has been set up by accused.
34. The reading of all these facts together leads to only one inescapable conclusion that accused had stabbed the injured PW-1 in his stomach with a knife. These facts has been duly proved by PW-1 in his testimony which has already been found to be cogent and reliable.
35. MLC of the injured Santosh was admitted by accused in his statement under Section 294 Cr.PC as Ex.PX4 as per which he had sustained lacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm, however, it was stated that depth was to be assessed by surgery department. The weapon used in inflicting injuries was stated to be sharp. He was thereafter referred to surgery department. PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat examined him in surgery department and he found out a clean lacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm elliptical in shape on left side chest along with skin loss over right palm. PW-14 Dr. Ankur Popat deposed that no pleural breach or rib fracture was present. He opined that the nature of injuries sustained by injured were simple in nature. The MLC of the injured Santosh clearly establishes that injuries were inflicted with a sharp weapon. Thus, the joint reading of testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 SC No.764/2019 Page No. 24 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 coupled with the medical evidence establishes beyond any doubt that accused Praveen @ Toni had stabbed the injured Santosh with a knife in his stomach.
36. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that investigation has not been done properly in the present case. He has argued that PW-13 Insp. Vijay Pal had deposed that he found some empty snacks packets, disposable plastic glass, buttons of the shirt, handle of a knife of black colour and bunch of hairs. Ld. Counsel has further argued that no fingerprints from the handle of the knife were taken. These empty snacks packets, disposable plastic glass, buttons of the shirt, etc. were not seized by the IO at anyone's instance. Even the handle of the knife was not seized at the instance of complainant or that of eye witness Kaushal Kumar.
37. The submissions made by Ld. counsel for accused in respect of shoddy investigation are absolutely true which is apparent from the face of record. The IO has been irresponsible throughout the investigation. When the exhibits containing the blood stained earth control, blood stained shirt of victim along with other exhibits were sent to FSL, only blood of accused was sent along with them, which could not have matched with the blood lying on the road and exhibits lifted from the spot as the accused did not bleed at all. These exhibits were again sent to FSL with blood sample of the victim but nothing could come in the examination as the blood on the exhibits was already exposed to air when it were opened for the first time by FSL.
38. In the present case, eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) have categorically narrated the role of accused in inflicting the injuries SC No.764/2019 Page No. 25 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 which is found to be consistent and reliable as discussed in the preceding paras. Undoubtedly, the investigation conducted by the IO in the present case is very shoddy, however, the material case of prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the ocular testimonies of eye-witnesses. Hence, even if the investigation is not conducted properly, it is not fatal to the prosecution at all. Reliance in this regard is placed on "C. Muniappan vs. State of T.N." (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein it was held as under:
"55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."
Hence, this argument of ld. Counsel for accused is not tenable at all.
39. Now, it is to be seen that whether non recovery of weapon of offence is fatal to the prosecution case. In this regard, it is noted that the ocular testimony of the witnesses is on a very higher pedestal. Since the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (injured and the eye-witness) SC No.764/2019 Page No. 26 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 have been found to be consistent and reliable in respect of the role of the accused in committing the offence, therefore, the fact that the prosecution has failed to recover the weapon of offence does not make the prosecution story unbelievable. In any case, recovery of weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for establishing the conviction. Hence, same is not fatal to the prosecution case.
40. The issue which needs judicial consideration is that whether on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, the offence punishable under section 308 IPC is actually made out or not.
41. In order to constitute an offence under Section 308 IPC, it is to be proved that the said act was committed by the accused with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the offence was committed under such circumstances that if the accused, by that act, had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide.
42. As per the MLC, following injuries were observed on the person of injured:
(i) CLW 2.5x0.5 cms elliptical in shape seen over the exterior lower aspect.
(ii) Injury on left side of the chest - depth to be assessed by surgery department.
(iii) Skin loss over the right palm along with the ulner border.
43. The intention or knowledge of the accused is to be culled out from the facts and circumstances in which injuries were caused to the injured. It is clear from the evidence on record that PW-1 and accused SC No.764/2019 Page No. 27 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 were peacefully drinking liquor together and, therefore, none of them had gathered at the spot with the intention to cause harm to the other. A scuffle took place all of a sudden and the accused inflicted injuries on his stomach with a knife. The nature of injuries suffered by PW-1 were opined to be simple caused by a sharp object, though on the vital part of body. But on wound exploration, no pleural effusion was found. Apparently, the injuries were not caused with the avowed intention or knowledge to cause his death.
44. In "Ramesh vs. State" 2010 (I) JCC 796, Hon'ble Delhi High Court altered the conviction from 308/34 to 323/34 by holding that assault was not premeditated and merely because an injury was found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to commit culpable homicide.
45. In "Raju @ Rajpal and Ors. vs. State of Delhi" 2014 (3) JC 1894, Hon'ble Delhi High Court altered the conviction from Section 308 to 323/34 by holding that the nature of injuries were simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death.
46. As a sequitur of the foregoing, this court is of the considered view that prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused for the minor offence under section 324 IPC, but no charge for the said offence has been framed. In these circumstances, Section 222 (3) of Cr.PC gains significance.
47. Section 222 of Cr.PC provides as under :
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 28 of 30State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 "222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.
Illustrations : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
48. In Shamsahib M. Multani Vs. State of Karnataka 2001 (2) SCC 577, the court held :
"What is meant by a 'minor offence' for the purpose of section 222 the code? Although the said expression is not defined in the Code it can be discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence. The two illustrations provided in the section would bring the above point home well. Only if the two offences are cognate offence, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as minor offence vis-a-vis the other offence."
49. Section 324 IPC is a minor offence to the offence u/s 308 IPC and hence accused is held guilty of the said offence u/s 324 IPC.
50. It is pertinent to mention here that the charges under Section 323 IPC were also framed against the accused besides Section 308 SC No.764/2019 Page No. 29 of 30 State vs. Parveen @ Toni FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23 IPC for inflicted injuries upon PW-2 Kaushal, however, nothing has come in evidence to support of the prosecution case regarding injury sustained by PW-2. Even PW-2 did not say that he received any injury. Therefore, it stands unproved.
Conclusion
51. Hence accused Praveen @ Toni is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC in the present FIR No. 148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector 23.
Digitally signed Announced in open court VANDANA by VANDANA JAIN on 30.01.2025 JAIN Date: 2025.01.30 16:00:15 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
Note: This judgment contains thirty (30) pages and having my signature on each page.
Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.30
16:00:22 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
SC No.764/2019 Page No. 30 of 30
State vs. Parveen @ Toni
FIR No.148/2017, PS Dwarka Sector-23