Delhi District Court
State vs Munna on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.: 903/2021
PS.: Wazirabad
under Section(s): 307/201 IPC
State Vs. Munna
(a) SC Case No. 218/2022
(b) CNR No. DLCT01-006117-2022
(c) Date of commission 19.12.2021 at around 03:00 p.m.
of offence
(d) Name of the Ajay Kumar, S/o. Sh. Badri
complainant Mahto, R/o. H. No. B-1929/55,
Gali No. 55, Near Dal Godam, Sant
Nagar, Wazirabad, Delhi.
(e) Name of the Munna, S/o. Sh. Bharat Mehto,
accused person(s), R/o. H. No. D-1925/55, Gali No. 5,
parentage and Sant Nagar, Wazirabad, Delhi.
residence
(f) Plea of the accused Not guilty
person(s)
(g) Final Order Accused, Munna is convicted of the
offence under Section 308 IPC.
(h) Date of institution 08.04.2022
of case
(i) Date when judgment 20.03.2026
was reserved
(j) Date when judgment 30.03.2026
was pronounced
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.12.2021 on receipt of information regarding an incident of stabbing vide DD No. 105A, SI Shankar along with HC Ajay reached at the spot, i.e., H. No. B-1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godown, Sant Nagar, Burari (hereinafter referred to as the 'spot'). At the spot, it was determined that the victim, namely, Subhash Mehto (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim'), had been SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 1 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:25:59 +0530 shifted to Hospital by his nephew, Ajay and Ajay's brother-in-
law (sala), namely, Shyamal via his autorickshaw (जहाँ दरियाफ्त पर मालूम चला कि मजरुब सुभाष S/o. राजेन्द्र मेहतो को उसका भतीजा अजय अपने साले श्यामल के साथ अपने Auto से Hospital लेकर गया है।). In the meanwhile, beat Constable Pratap is asserted to have reached at the spot, while the SI Shankar is proclaimed to have requisitioned the Crime Team at the spot for its inspection. Remarkably, during the course of such inspection, the Crime Team member(s) inter alia took photographs of the crime scene as well as lifted exhibits, i.e., broken pieces of knife/chaku, blood samples, and key, which were seized by the concerned police official(s) (जो दौराने इंस्पेक्शन क् राइम टीम ने मौका इंस्पेक्शन किया और फोटोग्राफ्स लिए तथा बाद Inspection Crime Team ने मौका से Exhibit i.e. एक दो हिस्सों में टु टा हु आ चाकू , Blood Sample in Plastic Vessel व एक चाबी उठाकर मन SI को पेश की।). Subsequently, the concerned police official proceeded to Trauma Centre Hospital, where the victim, Subhash Mehto was found under treatment vide MLC No. 32797/21. Notably, under the said MLC it was inter alia noted, "...A/H/O Physical assault on 19/12/2021 at Sant Nagar Burari Bengali Colony at around 3.15 pm as being told by and B/B Ajay Kumar... L/o. stab on (R) lower abdomen ć blood Loss, alcohol consumption...". Relevantly, at that point in time, the victim was further determined to have sustained, "...clean incised wound of 2*1 cm...depth 5cm ć peritoneal breach...alcohol smell present...", however, the nature of injuries of the victim were determined to be under observation, besides, the victim was opined to be unfit for statement at that point in time (हॉस्पिटल से MLC No 32797/21 अजाने सुभाष मेहतो S/o राजेन्द्र मेहतो R/o B- 1929/55 Sant Nagar Bengali Colony, Delhi उम्र 45 वर्ष हासिल की। जो Dr. साहब ने MLC पर A/H/O Physical assault on 19/12/2021 at Sant Nagar Burari Bengali Colony at around 3.15 pm as being told by SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 2 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:03 +0530 and B/B Ajay Kumar (Friend) व C/o Pain on abdomen व नतीजा चोट U/o तहरीर फरमाया और Pt. को Unfit for Statement बतलाया।). Concomitantly, the concerned police official(s) were handed over a sealed parcels by the concerned Doctor, which were seized.
2. Subsequently, statement of the complainant, namely, Ajay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'), who was found present in Trauma Centre at that point in time, was recorded. Markedly, under his statement/complaint, the complainant inter alia proclaimed that he was residing at premise bearing; B-1925/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godam, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi (spot) at the relevant point in time, on tenancy basis and that he was a permanent resident of Bihar, working as driver. As per the complainant on 19.12.2021, at around 03:00 p.m., he/the complainant along with his chacha/uncle, Subhash; his/complainant's brother-in-law, Shyam Lal; and friend, Munna (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') were present at the spot, eating and drinking (आज दिनांक 19/12/2021 को समय करीब 3 बजे मै मेरा चाच सुभाष मेरा साला श्याम लाल व मेरा दोस्त मुन्ना उपरोक्त पते पर बैठ कर खा पी रहे थे ). It was further proclaimed by the complainant that suddenly a scuffle ensued between Subhash and Munna, wherein Munna proclaimed to Subhash, "tune mujhe kya jhaad fus ki dawai di thi, mujhe aaram nahi aaya aur tune mere paise bhi kha gaya tu mera kya illaj karega aaj main tera ilaaj kar deta hun" ('...what medicine have you given me, I felt no relief and you have misappropriate my money...what treatment would you give me, I would treat you today...'; जो बातों ही बातो मे मेरे चाचा सुभाष व मेरे दोस्त मुन्ना की आपसी कहासुनी हो गई जो मेरा दोस्त मुन्ना बोला कि तुने मुझे क्या झाड फु स की दवाई दी थी मुझे कोई आराम नहीं आया और तू मेरे पैसे भी खा गया तु मेरा क्या इलाज करे गा आज में तेरा इलाज कर देता हूँ ). Suddenly, as per the complainant, accused Munna got SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 3 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:09 +0530 enraged and uttered, "aaj main tera kaam hi tamaam kar deta hun" ('I would kill you today'; जो मेरा दोस्त मुन्ना बहु त ज्यादा तहस में आ गया और बोला कि आज मै तेरा काम ही तमाम कर देता हूँ ) and he/Munna suddenly picked up a chaku/knife, kept nearby and attacked complainant's uncle/chacha, Subhash on his abdomen with the said chaku (और मुन्ना ने पास में ही रखे चाकू को उठाकर मेरे चाचा सुभाष के पेट में घोप दिया). Thereupon, as per the complainant, they intervened and complainant's brother-in-law, Shyamal took the victim to Trauma Centre Hospital, Civil Lines in his autorickshaw bearing registration no. DL-1RJ-5890. REGISTRATION OF FIR AND INVESTIGATION:
3. Notably, under the aforenoted facts and circumstances as well as on the basis of the complainant's complaint, the concerned police official prepared tehrir and got the instant FIR registered under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and the investigation ensued. Notably, during the course of investigation, inter alia site plan of the incident spot was prepared at the instance of the complainant; seized articles were deposited in malkhana; and the statements of various witnesses were recorded. Congruently, the concerned police official/IO is asserted to have made endeavour to record statements of persons in vicinity of incident spot and to recovered the CCTV footage, if any, of the incident, however, to no avail. Markedly, during the course of investigation, on 20.12.2021, the complainant along with mukhbir khaas/secret informer and the concerned police officials are stated to have proceeded for search of the accused in Jharoda area, who was apprehended at the instance/on identification of the complainant (जो दिनांक 20.12.2021 को मुखबिर खास की इतला पर मन SI मय HC अजय व शिकायतकर्ता समय करीब रात SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 4 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:13 +0530 01:20 am पर मुलजिम की तलाश करता हु आ झडोदा पहुंचा था व दौराने तलाश जब मन SI फट फट सेवा स्टैं ड झडोदा पहुंचा तो शिकायतकर्ता ने फटफट सेवा स्टैं ड पर खड़े एक शख्स की और इशारा करते हु ए बतलाया कि यह शख्स जो स्कू ल के सामने कोने पर खड़ा हैं यही मुन्ना हैं जिसने मेरे चाचा सुभाष महतो को चाकू से मारकर उसे चोट पहुंचाई थी। जो मन SI ने तुरंत उस शख्स को HC अजय की मदद से काबू किया और मौके पर ही काबू किये शख्स को शामिल तफ्तीश करके मुकदमा हजा की बावत दरियाफ्त अमल में लाई। दौराने दरियाफ्त उपरोक्त शख्स का नाम व पता मुन्ना पुत्र भारत कु मार पता म.न. B-1929/55, गली न. 55, नज्द दाल गोदाम, संत नगर, बुराड़ी दिल्ली मालूम चला।). Markedly, upon being apprehended, the accused is asserted to have disclosed of the commission of the offence and his disclosure statement was recorded as well as pointing out memo was prepared, by the concerned IO.
4. Subsequently, during the course of ongoing investigation, statement of the victim, Subhash Mehto (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim') was recorded wherein he inter alia proclaimed that he was a resident of H. No. B-1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godam, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi on tenancy basis and was a permanent resident of Bihar, at relevant point in time, whilst being engaged as auto-driver. Further as per the victim, a few days prior to the incident, accused Munna complained to him that he/accused was not feeling well and that the victim should get him medicine from GB Pant Hospital, while passing from the said area on his autorickshaw (जो मुन्ना ने मुझे कु छ दिन पहले बोला था कि उसके पेट में दर्द रहता हैं और ठीक नहीं हो रहा तू GB Pant की तरफ ऑटो चलाता हैं वहां से मुझे दवाई लाकर दे देना।). The victim further proclaimed that he was handed over money by Munna for said purpose and that he/victim, consequently, got medicine for Munna from the Hospital (जिसके लिए मुन्ना ने मुझे दवाई के पैसे दिए और मैं ने उसे हॉस्पिटल के पास एक मेडिकल से दवाई लाकर दे दी थी।). However, despite consumption of the said medicine, accused SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 5 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:17 +0530 Munna is proclaimed to have experienced no relief and he/accused started demanding return his money from the victim (जो दवाई खाने के बाद मुन्ना मुझसे कहता था कि उसे उस दवाई से कोई आराम नहीं हु आ और अपने पैसे वापिस मांगने लगा।). Upon this, as per the victim, he told Munna that he did not have money, which Munna had given him as he had already purchased medicine for him/the accused, with the said amount (मैं ने मुन्ना को कहा कि भाई मेरे पास पैसे नहीं हैं मैं ने तेरे द्वारा दिए हु ए पैसे दवाई वाले को दे दिए है ). However, accused Munna is avowed to have persevered to pressurise the victim to return his amount and on several occasions, as per the victim, accused used to threaten him by proclaiming, "mujhe mere paise de de nahi toh main tujhe chaku se maar dunga" ('return my money, else I would injury you with a knife'; परन्तु मुन्ना मुझ पर पैसे वापिस लेने का दबाव बनाता था और पैसे वापिस मांगता था तथा इसी बात को लेकर मुन्ना ने मुझे कई बार बोला कि मुझे मेरे पैसे दे दे नहीं तो मैं तुझे चाकू से मार दूंगा।). Correspondingly, as per the victim, on 19.12.2021 at around 03:00 p.m., his/victim's nephew, Ajay; Ajay's brother-in- law, Shyamal and victim's friend, Munna were present at the spot, eating and drinking (जो दिनांक 19/12/2021 को समय करीब 3 बजे मै , मेरा भतीजा अजय, अजय का साला श्याम लाल व मेरा दोस्त मुन्ना उपरोक्त पते पर बैठ कर खा पी रहे थे।). Suddenly, a scuffle ensued between the victim and Munna, pertaining to Munna's medicine and in the said process, Munna got enraged and uttered, "aaj main tera kaam hi tamaam kar deta hun" (जो बातो ही बातो में मेरे व मेरे दोस्त मुन्ना की दवाई को लेकर आपसी कहासुनी हो गई थी और मुन्ना बहु त ज्यादा तहस में आ गया और बोला कि आज मै तेरा काम ही तमाम कर देता हूँ ). Thereafter, suddenly, Munna is proclaimed to have picked up a chaku/knife, kept nearby and inflicted injury on the victim's stomach with the same (और मुन्ना ने पास में ही रखे चाकू को उठाकर मेरे पेट मे घोप दिया). Further, as per the victim, accused Munna had threatened to inflict injury on him SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 6 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:22 +0530 with chaku, on several previous occasions (इससे पहले भी कई बार इसी बात को लेकर मुन्ना मुझे चाकू मारने और देख लेने की धमकी देता रहता था।). Correspondingly, it was proclaimed by the victim that owing to said injury, he started to bleed and the persons present there started to intervene and subsequently, Ajay and Shyamal shifted the victim to Trauma Centre Hospital. Remarkably, besides the said statement of the victim, statements of other persons/witnesses were recorded by the IO; opinion on the nature of injures of the victim was obtained; and thereafter, the concerned IO prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the concerned court/Ld. MM.
FILING OF CHARGESHEET, SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGESHEET AND COMMITTAL:
5. Markedly, upon such chargesheet being filed by the concerned IO before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate/Ld. MM-07, Tis Hazari Courts under Sections 307/201 IPC, cognizance of said offence was taken by the Ld. MM-07, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 22.03.2022. Correspondingly, upon conclusion/compliance of the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 05.04.2022, Ld. MM-07, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Ld. Trial Court, directed committal of the present case before the Ld. Predecessor Judge, routed through, Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, inter alia observing, as under;
"...The offence u/s. 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Accordingly, the present case is committed to the Court of Sessions. Ld. PP be notified.
Let the present case file be put up before the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQ) on .... for appropriate order..."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 7 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:26 +0530
6. Remarkably, during the course of proceedings before the Ld. Predecessor Judge, supplementary chargesheet came to be filed on 28.05.2022, wherein the IO inter alia recorded that pursuant to the ongoing investigation, statements of various witnesses, including that of one Sh. Rakesh, S/o. Rawari was recorded. Noticeably, under his statement, Rakesh inter alia proclaimed that on the fourth floor of his premise bearing B-1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godam, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi, Munna, Subhash, Ajay and Shyamal were residing on tenancy basis. Congruently, as per Sh. Rakesh, on 19.12.2021 at around 03:00 p.m., when he returned to his said house, he was informed by his son, Saurabh that their tenant, Munna had inflicted stab injury on Subhash with knife/chaku and fled from the spot (दिनांक 19.12.2021 समय करीब 03:00 PM पर जब वह बाहर से घूमकर अपने घर पर पहुँचा तो उसके बेटे सौरभ ने बताया कि 4th फ्लोर पर रहने वाले हमारे किराएदार मुन्ना ने सुभाष के पेट में सब्जी काटने वाला चाकू मार दिया हैं ।) and that Ajay and Shyamal took the injured to Trauma Centre. Thereafter, as per Rakesh, when he reached at the fourth floor of the said premise, his tenant Munna was found present inside the room, nervous and upon being asked, Munna informed Rakesh that he had inflicted injury on Subhash with chaku, in a fit of rage (जिसे अजय व श्याम लाल ऑटो से ट्रामा सें टर हॉस्पिटल लेकर गए हैं । उसके बाद जब मैं अपने मकान के 4th Floor पर गया तो वहाँ पर किराएदार मुन्ना कमरे के अन्दर घबराया हु आ बैठा हु आ था और मेरे द्वारा पूछने पर मुन्ना ने बताया कि उसने तैश में आकर सुभाष के पेट में सब्जी काटने वाला चाकू मार दिया था।). Rakesh further proclaimed that he noted that blood as well as one chaku/vegetable knife, in broken condition, on the floor (जो देखने पर कमरे के फर्श पर खुन पड़ा था और कमरे के फर्श पर ही एक सब्जी काटने वाला चाकू दो हिस्सों में टु टा हु आ पड़ा था।).
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 8 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:35 +0530
7. Correspondingly, statement of Saurabh, S/o. Rakesh was recorded by the concerned IO, wherein he inter alia proclaimed that on 19.12.2021, he was sleeping on the ground floor of the premise bearing; H. No. B-1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godam, Sant Nagar, Delhi, whist Munna, Subhash, Ajay and Shyamal were present at the fourth floor thereof. At around 03:00 p.m., as per Saurabh, he heard some hue and cry. Consequently, he emerged from his room and observed that Ajay and Shyamal were taking Subhash, who was in an injured state, in an autorickshaw (दिनांक 19.12.2021 को मैं अपने घर के ग्राउंड फ्लोर पर सो रहा था कि समय करीब 03:00 PM पर उसे शोर शराबे की आवाज सुनाई दी और शोर शराबा सुनकर जब मैं अपने कमरे से बाहर आया तो देखा कि 4th फ्लोर पर रहने वाले किरायेदार अजय और श्याम लाल तीसरे किराएदार सुभाष को मजरुबी हालत में ऑटो में बिठाकर ले जा रहे थे।). Upon being asked, as per Saurabh, he was informed that Munna had inflicted injury on Subhash with a chaku/vegetable knife (जो पूछने पर उन्होंने बताया कि मुन्ना ने सुभाष के पेट में सब्जी काटने वाला चाकू मार दिया है और वे सुभाष को लेकर ट्रामा सें टर जा रहे हैं ।). Thereafter, as per Saurabh, he inter alia informed his father of the said facts and they proceeded for the fourth floor of the aforesaid premise, where Munna was found in a nervous state and he informed them of the occurrence/incident, upon being inquired. Thereafter, Saurabh is asserted to have made a call at 112 number, however, accused is proclaimed to have fled from the spot, in the meanwhile. Congruently, the concerned IO is stated to have recorded the statements of other witnesses, besides also obtained a subsequent opinion regarding the nature of injury vis-à-vis, the recovered broken pieces of weapon/chaku. Markedly, the supplementary chargesheet records that under the said subsequent opinion, the concerned Doctor inter alia opined, "such as injury in my opinion may occur using the above stated SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 9 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:54 +0530 object/weapon" (MLC न. 32797/21 पर Subsequent opinion लिया गया था जिसमे डॉक्टर आशीष सागर ने "such as injury in my opinion may occur using the above stated object/weapon" तहरीर फ़रमाया था।). Thereafter, as aforenoted, on conclusion of such/further investigation, supplementary chargesheet came to be filed by the concerned IO.
CHARGE FRAMING:
8. Appositely, subsequently, arguments on the aspect of charge were addressed by/on behalf of the accused as well as by/on behalf of State. Consequently, upon such arguments having been addressed, the Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 04.06.2022, directed framing of charge under Section 308 IPC against the accused, inter alia under the following observations;
"...1. The prosecution chargesheeted the accused for commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC on the allegations that on 19.12.2021 at about 03.00 p.m. in H. No. B1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godam, Sant Nagar, Delhi, the accused stabbed a knife into abdomen of the injured, namely, Subhash Mehto and thereby caused grievous injury to him.
*** *** ***
5. On examination of chargesheet, statements of the complainant, namely, Ajay Kumar and the injured, namely, Subhash Mehto, this Court is of the opinion that there was no previous enmity between the accused and the injured, namely, Subhash Mehto. The injured alongwith the complainant and his brotherinlaw, namely, Shyam Lal and the accused were consuming liquor in his house and at that time, on account of a trivial issue pertaining to certain medicines purchased by the injured from the amount given by the accused arose and consequent verbal altercation enraged the accused and he picked up kitchen knife kept there and stabbed it into abdomen of the injured, namely, Subhash Mehto.
6. There was no premeditation for causing any injury to the injured. There was no previous enmity between the accused and the injured. The incident had taken spur of a moment. The accused was not carrying any weapon with him. He used the kitchen knife which was already kept there. He had SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 10 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:26:58 +0530 inflicted a single blow.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the accused would not have been guilty of murder, if he had caused death of the injured. The intention and knowledge as required for application of Section 307 IPC does not exist.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is sufficient material disclosing prima facie commission of offence under Section 308 IPC. Charge under Section 308 IPC is framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial..."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Further, it is apposite here to reproduce the charge(s), as framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, as under;
"...I, ***, Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, do hereby charge you accused, namely, Munna S/o Sh. Bharat Mehto R/o H. No. D-1925/55, Gali No. 5, Sant Nagar, Wazirabad, Delhi, as under:
On 19.12.2021 at about 03.00 p.m. in H. No. B-1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godam, Sant Nagar, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Wazirabad, you caused grievous injury to the injured, namely, Subhash Mehto in the form of incised wound measuring 2 x 1 cm with 5 cm depth into his lower abdomen with a knife, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if by that act you had caused death of the injured, you would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and as such, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 308 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' within my cognizance.
Now I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid charge..."
(Emphasis supplied) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
10. Notably, during the course of trial/proceedings, prosecution examined 19 (nineteen) witnesses/prosecution witnesses, who deposed in their respective testimonies, regarding the following;
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 11 of 69 Digitally signedABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:03 +0530 Prosecution Particulars of Description witness no. the witness PW-1 Subhash Mehto Victim, who inter alia deposed of the incident and identified the accused as the perpetrator of offence.
PW-2 Ajay Kumar Complainant in the instant case, who inter alia deposed regarding the incident as well as enunciated of the role of the accused.
PW-3 Shyamal Mehto Eyewitness of the incident, inter alia deposed of the incident and identified the accused as the perpetrator of offence.
PW-4 ASI Satender MHC(M) at relevant point in time.
Deposed inter alia regarding the deposit of case property in the malkhana by SI Shankar as well as of subsequent deposit of case property in FSL, Rohini by him/PW-4.
PW-5 HC Manoj Deposed regarding the Kumar unavailability of PCR Form from 15.11.2020 to 05.03.2022 due to crashing of concerned computer server on 02.03.2022.
PW-6 Dr. Vijay Deposed inter alia regarding him Kumar providing primary treatment to the victim, Subhash Mehto on 19.12.2021 at Sushruta Trauma Centre as well as of him/PW-6's collecting the blood samples of the victim, sealing the same as well as handing over them to the IO.
PW-7 Dr. Deposed inter alia regarding Dhanasurya reaching of the victim at Sushruta Trauma Centre on 19.12.2021 and of him providing primary treatment to the patient/victim and thereafter referring the victim to General Surgery.
PW-8 SI Inderjeet Proclaimed regarding him along Singh with ASI Sudharshan, photographer and HC Ajay, fingerprint proficient, of reaching at the spot on 19.12.2021, on receipt of information from North District Control Room as well as of him/PW-8's inspecting the crime scene and preparation of report (Ex.
PW8/A).
PW-9 SI Sudarshan Deposed of him reaching at the spot SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 12 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:07 +0530 Pillain along with SI Inderjeet and HC Ajay at the spot and of him/PW-9's taking photographs of the crime scene.
PW-10 Saurabh Testified inter alia of him observing Ajay and Shyam Lal take Subhash in an injured condition in autorickshaw on 19.12.2021; of subsequently noting the accused present at the spot, the accused confessing his acts before him/PW-10 and his father, as well as of him/PW-10 making a call to police officials.
PW-11 Dr. Ashish Deposed inter alia regarding him Sagar Tyagi tendering an opinion on the nature of injuries of the victim, as grievous as well as of tendering an opinion regarding the weapon of offence.
PW-12 Rakesh Deposed inter alia of him being informed of the stabbing incident by his son and of him/PW-12 observing the accused in a nervous state at the spot.
PW-13 Dr. Salil Yadav Proved the discharge summary of the victim as well as asserted that the victim was diagnosed with, "loop ileostomy, post status exploration laparotomy with primary repair at transverse colon with loop ileostomy".
PW-14 Dr. Atulanand Proved the treatment papers of the Shirodkar victim, Subhash Mehto, including his/victim's. Out Patient Register Card as well as X-ray report.
PW-15 Shashi Bala Conducted the Biological analysis Pahuja of the samples as well as proved the DNA analysis report as well as allelic data thereof.
PW-16 HC Pratap Deposed inter alia of him reaching Singh at the spot on 19.12.2021 as well as of being left at the spot by the IO, whilst the concerned IO/SI Shankar proceeded for Trauma Centre, where the victim had already been shifted.
PW-17 HC Ajay Testified inter alia regarding him Panwar reaching at the spot along with IO/SI Shankar, on receipt of DD No. 105A by the said IO and of him/PW-17's joining the investigation proceedings as well as SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 13 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:27:12 +0530 getting the FIR registered at the instance of the IO.
PW-18 HC Parshuram Duty Officer at the relevant point in time. Deposed inter alia regarding him recording the call received on 19.12.2021 regarding an incident of stabbing as DD No. 105A as well as of him registering the FIR on receipt of rukka from HC Ajay.
PW-19 IO/SI Shankar Investigating Officer/IO in the present case. Testified regarding him conducting the investigation in the present case as well as of him/PW-19's filing chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet.
10.1. Remarkably, during the course of trial, the aforenoted witnesses/prosecution witnesses further exhibited/proved the following documents/material objects, during the course of their respective evidence;
Exhibit no. Description of Exhibit Exhibited
by/Attested
by/Proved by
Ex. PW1/A Photocopy of discharge summary PW-1/Subhash
of the victim from Sushruta Mehto
Trauma Centre.
Ex.PW1/1 Photographs of the injuries of the PW-1/Subhash
to victim. Mehto
Ex.PW1/3
Ex. MO-1 Knife recovered from the spot and PW-1/Subhash
stated to be deployed by the Mehto
accused.
Ex. MO-2 Clothes stated to be worn by the PW-1/Subhash
(Colly.) victim at the time of the incident Mehto
(one torn thermal inner having
brown stains, torn red and white
coloured T-shirt having brown
stains, one torn vest having brown
stains, two pieces of red colour
gamchha having brown colour
stains)
Ex. PW2/A Complaint by Ajay Kumar PW-2/Ajay
Kumar
Ex. PW2/B Arrest memo of the accused, PW-2/Ajay
namely, Munna. Kumar
Ex. PW2/C Personal search memo of the PW-2/Ajay
accused, namely, Munna. Kumar
Ex. PW4/A Copy of the relevant page of Reg. PW-4/ASI
(Colly.) No. 19 containing Sr. No. 1468. Satender SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 14 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:17 +0530 Ex. PW4/B Copy of RC No. 32/21/22 PW-4/ASI Satender Ex. PW4/C Copy of RC No. 83/21/22. PW-4/ASI Satender Ex. PW4/D Copt of acknowledgement of case PW-4/ASI acceptance at FSL, Rohini Satender Ex. PW5/A Letter issued by Mr. Rajpal Dabas, PW-5/HC Manoj ACP, Admn. / CPCR, Haiderpur, Kumar Shalimar Bagh, Delhi dated 10.08.2022.
Ex. PW5/B CPCR Form for event ID No. PW-5/HC Manoj (Colly.) 4363211 dated 19.12.2021. Kumar Ex. PW6/A MLC No. 32797/21 of victim/ PW-6/Dr. Vijay Subhash Mehto. Kumar Ex. PW8/A Scene of Crime Visit Report by PW-8/SI Inderjeet District Mobile Crime Team. Singh Ex.PW9/A1 Photographs of crime scene. PW-9/SI to Sudarshan Pillai Ex.PW9/A11 Ex. PW9/B Certificate under Section 65B of PW-9/SI Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in Sudarshan Pillai respect of crime scene photographs.
Ex. PW11/A Opinion regarding weapon of PW-11/Dr.
offence. Ashish Sagar
Tyagi
Ex. PW13/A Discharge summary of the victim, PW-13/Dr. Salil
Subhash Mehto. Yadav
Ex. PW13/B Treatment documents of victim, PW-13/Dr. Salil
(Colly.) Subhash Mehto Yadav
Ex. PW14/A Documents pertaining to treatment PW-14/Dr.
of victim, Subhash. Atulanand
Shirodkar
Ex. PW15/A FSL Report regarding Biological PW-15/Ms.
(Colly.) analysis of seized samples. Shashi Bala
Pahuja
Ex. PW15/B Allelic data report. PW-15/Ms.
Shashi Bala
Pahuja
Ex. PW17/A Sketch of recovered knife. PW-17/HC Ajay
Panwar
Ex. PW17/B Seizure memo of broken knife, PW-17/HC Ajay
blood sample and key. Panwar
Ex. PW17/C Seizure memo of blood samples, PW-17/HC Ajay
clothes and sample seal, seized Panwar
from Doctor.
Ex. PW17/D Site plan of the scene of crime. PW-17/HC Ajay
Panwar
Ex. PW17/E Disclosure statement of the PW-17/HC Ajay
accused. Panwar
Ex. PW17/F Pointing out memo at the instance PW-17/HC Ajay
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 15 of 69
Digitally signed
ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30
16:27:21 +0530
of the accused. Panwar
Ex. PW18/A CCTNS vide DD No. 105A dated PW-18/HC
19.12.2019. Parshuram
Ex. PW18/B Copy of FIR No. 903/2021. PW-18/HC Parshuram Ex. PW18/C Endorsement on rukka. PW-18/HC Parshuram Ex. PW18/D Certificate under Section 65B of PW-18/HC Indian Evidence Act in respect of Parshuram registration of FIR.
Ex. PW19/A Tehrir. PW-19/IO/SI
Shankar
Ex. MO-3 Seized key in unsealed condition. PW-19/IO/SI
Shankar
10.2. Notably, all the aforenoted prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by/on behalf of the accused. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED:
11. Apposite to note here that upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused, in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 28.02.2025, wherein the accused, Munna, denied his involvement in the present case and proclaimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Correspondingly, it was proclaimed by the accused that he had lent a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to Subhash, two months prior to the alleged date of incident. Further, as per the accused, on the date of incident, he had requested for return of his amount. However, upon such demand, as per the accused, victim/Subhash Mehto got agitated and abused him/the accused. Subsequently, the accused asserted that he left the spot and it was only later on that he came to know that he was falsely implicated in the present case. Congruently, as per the accused, he was sitting in his landlord's room, when the police officials reached there and falsely/wrongly apprehended him in the present case. Notably, the relevant extracts from accused, Santosh Kumar's statement, SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 16 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:30 +0530 recorded on 28.02.2025, under Section 313 Cr.P.C./Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short), are reproduced as under;
"...Q. 4: It is in evidence against you that PW-1/Subhash Mehto deposed that on 19.12.2021 at about 02.30-03.00 p.m., he/PW-1 along with his nephew, namely, Ajay, Shyam Lal (brother-in-law of Ajay) and the accused, namely, Munna were taking lunch as non-veg. and rice were prepared and during conversation, an altercation between him/PW-1 and the accused Munna took place. PW-1 further deposed that the accused got very angry and he asked for his money and he/PW-1 told him/Munna that he/PW-1 did not have money. PW-1 further deposed that he/accused stood up, PW-1 also stood up. PW-1 further deposed that he/accused picked a knife which was kept near to him/the accused and told, "mera paisa kaise wapis dega? Mai tujhe maar dunga" and he/accused stabbed knife in his/PW-1's stomach. PW-1 further deposed that he/PW-1 shouted "chaku maar diya, chaku maar diya". What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
*** *** *** Q. 7: It is in evidence against you that PW-1/Subhash Mehto correctly identified the accused Munna stating that the accused Munna was present in the Court during the course of his deposition. (Witness pointed towards the accused, namely, Munna.). What do you have to say? Answer: It is correct as he was residing along with me.
*** *** *** Q. 14: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Mr. Ajay Kumar deposed that an altercation took place between the accused, namely Munna and Subhash Mehto and accused, namely, Munna told, "mere paise dede nahi to mai tera kaam tamam kar dunga". PW-2 further deposed that the accused picked a kitchen knife which was kept near him and stabbed his chacha, Subhash in his stomach. PW-2 further deposed that the accused, namely, Munna broke the knife and also cleaned the said knife. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, blood was oozing out from the stomach of his chacha Subhash and his brother-in-law, namely Shyam Lal tied a gamcha around his stomach to stop bleeding. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 17 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:35 +0530 *** *** ***
Q. 17: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Mr. Ajay Kumar deposed that the police apprehended the accused on his/PW-2's identification. PW-2 further deposed that at about 02.30 a.m., IO arrested the accused Munna vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B, which bears his signature at point A. PW-2 further deposed that IO carried out personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/C, which bears his signature at point A. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
*** *** *** Q. 22: It is in evidence against you that PW-3/Mr. Shyamal Mehto deposed that accused Munna got angry and threatened Subhash to kill him. PW-3 further deposed that the accused picked a kitchen knife which was kept near to him and stabbed Subhash in his stomach. PW-3 further deposed that he/PW-3 was taking care of Subhash. It is further in evidence that as per PW-3, the accused, namely, Munna cleaned the aforesaid knife with a cloth, broke the said knife and threw the same in the room. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
*** *** *** Q. 43: It is in evidence against you that PW-11/Dr. Ashish Sagar Tyagi deposed that on 19.01.2022, he was posted as Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi and on that day, MLC No. 32797/21 dated 19.12.2021 of the patient, namely, Subhash Mehto S/o Mr. Rajender Mehto, age 45 years, male was put before him along with treatment records. It is further in evidence that as per PW-11, on the basis of the aforesaid record, he/PW-11 opined the nature of injury as 'grievous' and his opinion is encircled in portion 'Y' in MLC already Ex.PW6/A which bears his signature at point 'D'. What do you have to say? Answer: I do not know.
*** *** *** Q. 46: It is in evidence against you that PW-12/Mr. Rakesh deposed that on 19.12.2021 at about 03.00 p.m. - 03.30 p.m., his son, namely, Saurabh made a call to him and informed that a tenant had stabbed another tenant with knife. PW-12 further deposed that he came to his house and his son, namely, Saurabh told him that the accused, namely Munna had stabbed Subhash and Ajay and Shyam Lal had taken Subhash to Trauma Centre. PW-12 further deposed that he along with his son, SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 18 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:39 +0530 namely, Saurabh went to 4th floor of their house and saw that the accused, namely, Munna was sitting in his room. He/PW-12 made enquiry from the accused but he did not speak anything. PW-12 further deposed that he along with his son came downstairs, and he/PW-12 gave his mobile phone to his son to make call at 100. What do you have to say?
Answer: I do not know whether any call was made or not. However, it is incorrect that I had committed any offence as alleged. I was falsely implicated in the present case.
*** *** *** Q. 53: It is in evidence against you that PW-15/Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja deposed; "the male DNA profile was generated from the source of exhibit '1' (Knife), '3' (Blood sample), '4a' (inner of injured), '4b' (T-shirt of injured), '4c' (Banian of injured) & '4d' (Cloth piece of injured). The alleles from the source of exhibit '3' (Blood sample) are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit '1' (Knife), '4a' (inner of injured), '4b' (T-shirt of injured), '4c' (Banian of injured) & '4d' (Cloth piece of injured)." What do you have to say?
Answer: I do not know.
*** *** *** Q. 81: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: I have been falsely implicated in the present case. I had lent a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Subhash, two months prior to the alleged date of incident. On the said date, I had requested for return of my amount. However, upon my demand, Subhash Mehto got agitated and abused me. Thereafter, I left the place and later on, came to know that I was falsely implicated in the present case. I cannot tell what had transpired with Subhash Mehto once I left from there.
Q. 82: Why have the PWs deposed against you? Answer: They all are interested witnesses and also the relatives of Subhash Mehto.
Q. 83: Do you want to lead any evidence in your defence?
Answer: Yes.
Q. 84: Do you want to say anything else?
Answer: I have been falsely implicated in the present case. I had lent a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Subhash, two months prior to the alleged date of incident. On the said date, I had requested for return of my amount. However, upon my demand, SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 19 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:43 +0530 Subhash Mehto got agitated and abused me. Thereafter, I left the place and later on, came to know that I was falsely implicated in the present case. I cannot tell what had transpired with Subhash Mehto once I left from there. I returned to my home in the evening, my room was locked. I enquired from the landlord Rakesh who informed me that Subhash Mehto, Ajay and Shyam Lal had a scuffle in which injury had been caused to Subhash Mehto and that he has been shifted to hospital. Thereafter, I was sitting in the landlord's room when the police officials reached there and falsely and wrongly apprehended me in the present case..."
(Emphasis supplied) 11.1. As aforenoted, during the course of recording of his aforenoted statement, the accused opted to lead evidence/witness in his defence and subsequently, led himself as DW-1 in his defence, pursuant to his/accused's application under Section 315 Cr.P.C./Section 353 BNSS, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.06.2025 inter alia under the following observations;
"...Ld. Counsel for the accused Munna has moved an application under Section 353 BNSS/315 Cr.P.C., seeking permission to adduce himself as witness in the present case. Copy thereof is supplied to Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the examination of the accused as defence witness is imperative to prove his innocence and in case the present application is not allowed, grave and irreparable loss would be caused to the accused. The accused has further submitted that he desires to examine himself as defence witness in the present case.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State has not opposed the present application.
Heard. Perused.
For the reasons stated in the application, provisions under law and considering that the prayer has not been opposed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this Court, in the interest of justice, is inclined to allow the present application. Consequently, the present application under Section 353 BNSS/315 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 20 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:47 +0530
Accused Munna is permitted to enter in his defence.
In the interest of justice, list for DE on..."
(Emphasis supplied) 11.2. Consequently, the accused was examined-in-chief, cross-examined and discharged on 04.12.2025. Correspondingly, on the same date, the accused asserted that he did not desire to lead any further evidence in the support of his case. Consequently, accused's right to lead DE/defence evidence was closed vide order of an even date/order dated 04.12.2025, upon his separate statement to the aforesaid effect. CONTENTIONS BY/OF BEHALF OF STATE AS WELL AS COMPLAINANT:
12. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that from the material placed on record and, in particular, from the conjoint reading of the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, including that of the victim/PW-1 as well as the eyewitnesses; PW-2 and PW-3, role, complicity as well as active involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence alleged against him stands proved. As per Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the version of the all the prosecution witnesses have thoroughly been consistent and that nothing has emerged under their cross- examination so as to belie the consistent version of such witnesses. In this regard, it was vehemently argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have not only been consistent, rather, unambiguously point out towards the only finding of accused's guilt. Even otherwise, it was argued that the depositions of the said witnesses find corroboration with the medical records of the victim as well as the deposition of the concerned Doctors. Congruently, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the version of defence put forth by the accused has not only SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 21 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:51 +0530 been an afterthought, rather, extremely unbelievable, besides being unsupported by any other material, document and/or witness(es). It was further submitted that the accused inflicted injury on the vital part of the victim's body, unprovoked and the nature of such injuries was opined to be grievous, unmistakably, attracting the provisions under Section 308 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State reiterated that from the material, evidence and documents, placed on record the charges levelled against the accused stand duly proved, making him liable for the offences/charges levelled against him. 12.1. Concomitantly, while supplementing the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the complainant/victim, argued that the complainant and eyewitnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution, besides have been consistent/thorough even in their deposition before this Court. As per Ld. Counsel, the accused inflicted injury on the victim, with a sole intention/knowledge to kill him, as corroborated by the manner and nature of injuries sustained by him. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further argued that the impact of such injuries has not only been physical, rather, psychological, besides, it was argued that the victim is still constrained to suffer the impact of the injury/attack, grossly affecting victim's ability to work even for his basic sustenance. Further, it was argued that the accused has tendered self-serving evidence/deposition and the defence put forth by him/the accused is nothing other than a mere firmament of his imagination, unreliable and concocted. Ergo, Ld. Counsel for the complainant/victim argued that from the facts and circumstances as well as material brought on record, provisions under Section 308 IPC are clearly/unambiguously SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 22 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:55 +0530 attracted against the accused, making him liable to be consequently convicted of the said offence. CONTENTIONS OF DEFENCE:
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused outrightly submitted that from the material placed on record, the ingredients of offence under Section 308 IPC and/or any other offence are not made out in the instant case. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that the prime prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW1, PW-2 and PW-3 are all related witnesses and have filed/initiated the present proceedings against the accused solely with an intention to implicate him in the present false case, over money related disputes. Even otherwise, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that there are material inconsistences, contradictions and improvements in the versions put forth by various witnesses, making them unworthy of credence and liable to be outrightly rejected. In this regard, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel that nowhere under the PCR Call, which was the inception to the present case against the accused, is there any mention of accused, Munna or that the alleged incident of stabbing was committed by the accused. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, it was only under the FIR that the accused was introduced for the first time, rendering the prosecution case, doubtful. Correspondingly, it was argued that there has been significant and substantial delay in the registration of FIR. In this regard, Ld. Counsel submitted that though the alleged incident took place at around 03:00 p.m. (allegedly), however, the FIR came to be registered only at 11:00 p.m., after a delay of around eight hours, without any satisfactory explanation forthcoming for such delay. Further, it was argued that though the prosecution has produced a kitchen knife/MO-1, allegedly recovered in broken pieces, however, there is material SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 23 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:27:59 +0530 contradictions regarding the presence of blood stains on the said pieces. In this regard, it was argued that though, PW-17 and PW-19 asserted that the said knife was blood stained, however, as per PW-8 and PW-11, no visible blood stains were found present on the said knife. Even otherwise, it was submitted that nowhere under the depositions of any of the prosecution witnesses, reason for breaking of said kitchen knife, forthcoming. 13.1. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that PW-6 and PW-7 both submitted in their respective cross- examination that the injuries on the victims could be self- inflicted. However, despite the same, as per the Ld. Counsel, no evidence has been adduced to rule out such self-infliction of injuries on the victim and attribute the same to the accused herein. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel the conduct of the 'so called' eyewitnesses of not apprehending the accused on the spot, despite their assertion that the accused was present therein, is sufficient to belie the version of such witnesses. Correspondingly, it was submitted that despite the alleged incident having taken place in a building with multiple tenants, however, no independent witnesses/public witnesses were joined in the investigation or adduced as witnesses by the prosecution. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel there are also contradictions with respect to the alleged place of arrest, whether it was at the place of the landlord or from a public place. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that though PW-12 proclaimed that the police took the accused between 03:30 p.m. to 04:00 p.m., however, PW-19 asserted that the accused was arrested at 02:00 a.m. from a public place, clearly suggesting that the accused was illegally detained and implicated in the present case.
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 24 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:03 +0530
13.2. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that even otherwise, from the material brought on record, ingredients of offence under Section 308 IPC are not made out against the accused. In this regard it was submitted that even presuming the prosecution version, admitted the incident occasioned due to a sudden quarrel, as a minor dispute and there was only a single injury on the victim, without there being any pre-meditation or motive on the part of the accused. Further it was submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove/attribute motive on the accused for the commission of alleged offence. In this regard, it was argued that PW-1 could not even depose of the name of the medicine shop from where he allegedly purchased medicine for the accused, besides no endeavour was made by the IO to trace out any such Chemist or seize and prescription. Congruently, it was asserted that neither PW-2 was present at the time when money for medicine was allegedly given to the victim nor PW-3 properly disclose of any such transaction. Even otherwise, it was submitted that there is clear evidence of alcohol in the blood of the victim, contradicts the version of incidents put forth by the complainant and 'so called' eyewitnesses. Consequently, it was submitted that the prosecution has not only been unable to prove the ingredients of offence/charge(s) alleged against the accused beyond a pale of doubt, besides the evidence/material brought forth is grossly deficit to bring home culpability for the said offence. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing submissions, Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused be permitted to benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges levelled against him. APPEARANCE:
14. The arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the complainant and that of Ld. Counsel for the SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 25 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:07 +0530 accused have been heard as well as the records, including the testimonies of various witnesses, documents/material/evidence placed on record (oral and documentary evidence) and written submissions filed, thoroughly perused. LEGAL PROVISIONS:
15. Before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems it prudent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC as under;
"308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Notably, from a perusal of the above, it is outrightly observed that in order to attract culpability under Section 308 IPC, prosecution is inter alia required to prove1; "(i) that an act was committed; and (ii) that the act was committed with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death was caused by the act, the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.". Correspondingly, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to establish2 that an accused, "had requisite intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide. It is crucial to determine whether the accused had intention or knowledge that the injuries inflicted on the victim would cause the death and as a result thereof the accused could 1 Vivek Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC Online Del 9558.
2Salman v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1247.
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 26 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:11 +0530
be guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder...". Reference in this regard is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjeev Kumar v. State, 2023 SCC Online Del 1706, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the ingredients of the offence under Section 308 IPC, remarked as under;
"6. Coming to Section 308 IPC, this Court in Shiv Singh v. State, 1983 SCC Online Del 163 which was followed in Brahm Dutt's case (supra) held that in order to constitute an offence under Section 308 "it must be proved (1) that the accused committed an act, (2) that the said act was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and (3) the act was committed under such circumstances if the accused by that act had caused death he would have been guilty of culpable homicide." It was further ruled that intention is a question of fact which is gathered from the acts committed by the accused and knowledge means awareness of the consequences of the act. This has also been followed by this Court in Ved Kumari v. State, 2002 SCC Online Del 168 in setting aside summons issued under Section 308 IPC..."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Correspondingly, in respect of the foregoing, reference is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mohan Rathor v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1986 SCC Online MP 113 wherein the Hon'ble Court, while inter alia distinguishing between the provisions under Section 307 IPC and Section 308 IPC as well as of the manner of determination of mens rea of an accused, noted as under;
"5. It has to be examined whether this act committed by the appellant comes within the scope and orbit of S. 307 or S. 308 of the Penal Code. If an accused does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he, by that act, caused death, he would be guilty of murder, he shall be guilty of committing an offence punishable under S. 307, but if an accused did any act that he would be guilty of culpable homicide not SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 27 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:28:16 +0530 amounting to murder, he shall be guilty of committing an act punishable under S. 308 of the Penal Code. Culpable homicide does not amount to murder (a) if the act is done with the intention or knowledge referred to in S. 300 of the Penal Code but under circumstances which would bring the case within one of the Exceptions mentioned in that section or (b) if the act is done with the intention or knowledge referred to in S. 299 but not falling under clauses (2), (3) and (4) of S. 300 of the Penal Code. Thus, if an accused does not intend to cause death or any bodily injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or even to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death, S. 308 of the Penal Code would apply even if the case is not covered by any of the exceptions mentioned in S. 300 of the Penal Code.
6. But before an act can be said to have been committed under S. 308 of the Penal Code, it is essential to examine the mens rea of the appellant at the time of the incident, because mens rea is one of the two essential elements of the offence of an attempt of murder. To constitute an offence of attempt to murder, there must be an act coupled with mens rea. What inspired the appellant to commit the alleged crime? Had he intention to kill?
Intention has been defined to consist of a desire that certain consequence shall follow from, the act or omission of the accused. If there is no such intention or knowledge, as is necessary to constitute murder? there can be no attempt to commit it. The intention may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events, previous or subsequent to the incident or occurrence. Various relevant circumstances from which the intention may be gathered are: nature of the weapon used, part of the body where injury was caused, nature of injury and opportunity available to accused...."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Germane for the purpose(s) of the present discourse to make a reference to the decision in Rajiv Sharma v. State, 2015 SCC Online Del. 12138, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi explicitly noted that the nature of injury of the victim is not the determining test for the offence under Section 308 IPC. On the contrary, it has to be seen, whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 28 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:28 +0530 such circumstances that, if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Pertinently, the relevant extract from the said dictate is as under;
"4. To proceed under Section 308 IPC, it is not essential that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If an accused does not intend to cause death or any bodily injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or even to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, Section 308 IPC would not apply. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had the intention to cause death or knew in the circumstances that his act was going to cause death. The nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the motive of commission of offence, the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for causing injuries, severity of the blow or blows and the conduct of the accused are important factors which may be taken into consideration in coming to a finding whether in a particular case, the accused can be proceeded under Section 308 IPC..."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Congruently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Chuni Lal v. State of Delhi, 2013 SCC Online Del 3074, remarked that where direct evidence is available, mere non- recovery of weapon would not be of much consequence. In this regard, the Hon'ble Court, remarked as under;
"18. As regards the submission that the weapon of offence has not been recovered, record reveals that accused Chuni Lal was arrested on 11th May 1996 and as per his disclosure statement, he had thrown away the weapon of offence in a running tempo. Nihal Singh was evading arrest and, as such, was declared proclaimed offender. He could be arrested only on 3rd November, 1997. As such, after a lapse of such considerable period, there was hardly any possibility of recovery of weapon of offence at SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 29 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:28:35 +0530 his instance. Moreover, mere non-recovery of weapon of offence is not a factor from which the appellants can get any benefit. In Mohinder v. State, 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 645, it was held that non- recovery of weapon of offence during investigation is not such an important factor to neutralise the direct evidence of complicity of accused in the murder of deceased..."
(Emphasis supplied) APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
20. Ergo, being wary of the aforenoted legal principles, judicial dictates and the rival contentions of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the complainant/victim as well as that of Ld. Counsel for the accused, this Court would now proceed with the determination on merits of the instant case. In particular, and outrightly to the effect as to, 'whether from the material placed on record, culpability under the provisions of law, i.e., Section(s) 308 IPC can be attributed to accused namely, Munna, beyond reasonable doubt?'. Conspicuously, in order to deal with the said aspect, this Court deems it apt to incipiently note that the case of prosecution primarily hinges on the versions/depositions of the victim/PW-1/Subhash Mehto as well as that of the complainant/PW-2/Ajay Kumar and PW-3/Shyamal Mehto. Apposite at this stage to note here that the victim/PW-1/Subhash Mehto inter alia proclaimed in his deposition that in the month of December 2021, he was working as an auto-driver and that accused Munna had informed him/PW-1 that he/accused was suffering with stomach pain and was not experiencing any relief. Consequently, as per PW-1, accused asked him/PW-1 to get him medicine from G.B. Pant Hospital and he/accused handed over money to PW-1 for the said purpose. Ergo, as PW-1 asserted that he purchased medicine from a medical store, near G.B. Pant Hospital and gave it to the accused. However, accused informed SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 30 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:40 +0530 PW-1 that he was not experiencing any pain from the medicine that PW-1 had given him. Correspodningly, as per PW-1, accused used to make comments, "kaisi davai laya hai aaram nahi hua, jadu tona krake laya hai qua? Mere paise wapis kar"
('what kind of medicine have you got, I experienced no pain. Have you done some magic with the medicine? Return my money'). As per the victim, he told the accused that he had already used the money to buy medicine and that he did not have any money. Upon which, the accused told him several times, "mere paise wapis de de, nahi to chaku maar dunga" ('return my money else I would stab you with a knife'). Congruently, PW-1 testified that on 19.12.2021 at about 02.30-03.00 p.m., he/PW-1 along with his nephew, namely, Ajay, Shyam Lal (brother-in-law of Ajay) and the accused, were taking lunch and during conversation, an altercation ensued between him/PW-1 and the accused. Further, as per PW-1, accused got very angry and asked for his money, whereupon, PW-1 reiterated that he did not have accused's money. As per PW-1, when the accused and he stood up, the accused picked a knife which was kept near him and while proclaiming, "mera paisa kaise wapis dega? Mai tujhe maar dunga" ('how would you return my money? I would kill you'), stabbed the victim/PW-1 with the said knife in his/PW-1's stomach. Consequently, PW-1 shouted, "chaku maar diya, chaku maar diya" ('I have been stabbed with a knife') and his stomach started to bleed. Congruently, PW-1 asserted that Shyam Lal tried a gamchha (cloth) around his/PW-1's stomach. Further, as per PW-1 Ajay as well as Shyam Lal intervened and rescued him as well as thereafter, took him/PW-1, in an auto-rickshaw to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. PW-1 further proclaimed that he became unconscious due to excessive bleeding and regained SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 31 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:45 +0530 consciousness in the Hospital. Further, as per PW-1, he remained under medical treatment in Hospital for many days and was discharged from Trauma Centre on 27.12.2021. Thereafter, as per PW-1, he was admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on 29.04.2022 and remained there till 11.05.2022 due to aforesaid injury. Pertinently, during the course of his deposition3, PW-1 produced photocopy of his discharge summary of Trauma Centre as Ex. PW1/A as well as correctly identified the accused as the perpetrator of offence. Congruently, during the course of his deposition, PW-1 identified the knife, stated to be deployed by the accused for commission of offence as MO-1 and the clothes worn by him at the time of incident as MO-2 (Colly.). Further, PW-1 also showed his injuries on his abdominal portion to the court, containing stitching marks on his abdomen, as also depicted in photographs Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3.
21. Relevantly, during the course of his cross- examination by/at the behest of the accused, PW-1 inter alia proclaimed as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Advocate for the accused.
I have studied upto 8th standard. On 19.12.2021, I returned to my home at about 10.00 a.m. I alongwith Ajay, Munna, Jai Ram and Shyam Lal were residing in the said room at 4th floor of property having H. No. B-1929, Gali No. 55, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. Ajay, Munna and Shyam Lal were present at the room when I reached there. Ajay had given me Rs.100/- to bring and cook food. We had not consumed liquor on that day. It is wrong to suggest that we had consumed liquor on that day. There are 2 rooms on the 4th floor. Our kitchen was outside of our room. I had cooked food on that day. The food was cooked by 01.30 p.m. 02.00 p.m. Munna came to room within half an hour after preparation of food but I do not remember the exact 3 Pertinently, PW1 Subhash Mehto, PW2 Ajay Kumar and PW3 Shyam Lal Mehto were recalled pursuant to order dated 25.01.2023 of the Ld. Predecessor Judge.
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 32 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:49 +0530
time. We all had taken our lunch together. During lunch, the incident had taken place.
During altercation between me and accused Munna, Shyam Lal and Ajay were having lunch and they did not came to separate or pacify us. Jai Lal alongwith his family was residing in another room at 4th floor. During incident, Jai Lal was at his work place and his wife was also not present at her room. It is wrong to suggest that wife of Jai Lal was present at her room during the incident. I do not know about medicines. I am residing in Delhi for about 10-15 years. I started residing at the aforesaid property around one month prior to the date of incident. I do not know the name of medicine brought by me for Munna. (Vol.: There were syrup and tablets.) I purchased medicines from medical store by informing the chemist about the illness. I cannot tell the name and address of that medical store. I do not know any tantra mantra and jaadu tona technique. It is wrong to suggest that I had not brought any medicine for Munna since I do not know the name and address of the medical store as well as the name of medicine. It is wrong to suggest that I had borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from Munna and when Munna demanded his money back, I inflicted injuries to myself and falsely implicated Munna in the present case. IO made enquiry from me about the incident in PS 1-2 days prior to Holi festival. I am not aware who made call at 100. I do not know when our landlord came to know about the incident. I did not have illness related to stomach.
No surgery of my stomach was done prior to medical treatment pertaining to this case. It is wrong to suggest that 1 had borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from Munna and when he demanded his money back, I told him that I had cured him from jaadu tona and the aforesaid Rs. 20,000/- was charged by me as fee for his treatment from jaadu tona. It is wrong to suggest that accused Munna had left the room immediately after altercation and I injured myself with knife and falsely implicated accused Munna in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I had cleaned the knife and broken it in order to conceal evidence of finger prints on knife. It is wrong to suggest that I and my relatives, namely, Ajay and Shyam Lal have deposed falsely before the Court. It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith Ajay and Shyam Lal hatched a conspiracy against the accused Munna and in pursuance of said conspiracy, I injured myself with a knife and falsely SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 33 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:54 +0530 implicated the accused Munna in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.
*** *** *** I had no tool like plier etc. at my house. It is wrong to suggest that we had broken the said knife and planted upon the accused, namely, Munna as knife cannot be broken with hands. It is wrong to suggest that I suffered injury by some other knife and not by the aforesaid knife. I had shouted "chaku maar diya chaku maar diya" when the accused stabbed me with knife. The persons, namely, Shayamal and Ajay were present in the same room during incident.
I do not know whether Shyamal and Ajay apprehended or tried to apprehend the accused after he stabbed knife into my abdomen as my concentration was towards the injury sustained by me. I was conscious at the time when I suffered injury. After causing injury to me, the accused remained in the room till I was in the room. I do not remember the exact time of my stay in my room after sustaining injury. It is wrong to suggest that the accused had already left before I sustained injury. It is wrong to suggest that I have implicated the accused so as to avoid repayment of amount which I extorted from him in the name of ensuring magical remedies to him."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Correspondingly, reference is made to the testimony of PW-2/Ajay Kumar, who avowed in his deposition that on 19.12.2021 at around 03:00 p.m., he/PW-2 along with his friend, Munna; brother-in-law (sala), Shyam Lal and chacha, were partying at the spot. However, as per PW-2, during the party, accused, who was correctly identified by PW-2 in Court, demanded his money back from PW-2's chacha/Subhash Mehto. As per PW-2, the said amount was paid by Munna to Subhash to bring some medicine. PW-2 further asserted that accused told Subhash that he had not experienced any relief from the medicine brought by him/Subhash and the accused demanded his money back from Subhash. Thereupon, Subhash replied that he had already purchased medicine with the said money and handed SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 34 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:28:59 +0530 over the same/medicine to Munna and that he did not have any amount. Consequently, an altercation is avowed to have taken place between the accused and Subhash Mehto, whereupon, the accused/Munna, proclaimed, "mere paise dede nahi to mai tera kaam tamam kar dunga" ('return my money, else I would kill you'). Further, as per PW-2, the accused picked a kitchen knife, which was kept near him and stabbed PW-2's chacha Subhash in his stomach. Congruently, PW-2 asserted that accused broke the knife and also cleaned the same. It was further avowed by PW-2 that since blood was oozing out from Subhash's stomach, PW-2's brother-in-law, Shyam Lal tied a gamcha around his stomach to stop bleeding. Thereafter, PW-2 along with Shyam Lal immediately took the victim Subhash to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi in his/PW-2's auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. DL-1RZ-5890, where the said victim was admitted. Thereafter, as per PW-2, Police reached at the said Trauma Centre and recorded his/PW-2's statement, Ex. PW2/A. On the same night, as per PW-2, he along with IO went to different places in search of the accused and when they reached Jharoda, the accused was found there, where the accused was apprehended on his/PW-2's identification at around 02:30 a.m. As per PW-2, IO arrested accused Munna vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B as well as carried out his personal search, Ex. PW2/C. Pertinently, PW-2 identified the knife (Ex. MO-1), deployed by the accused at the time of the occurrence as well as the clothes worn by the victim/Subhash Mehto at the time of occurrence (Ex. MO-2).
23. Markedly, upon being cross-examined by/on behalf of the accused, PW-2, proclaimed as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Advocate for the accused.
I am illiterate. I alongwith Shyam Lal and Jai SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 35 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:29:03 +0530 Ram were residing in a room at 4th floor of the aforesaid property for around 3 years prior to the date of incident. Subhash Mehto had started residing with us for 1-1½ months prior to date of incident. The accused Munna was residing with us for around 1 year prior to the date of incident. I left for my work during night of 18.12.2021 and returned to my room at about 09.00 am. On 19.12.2021. Shyam Lal was present at the said room when I returned on 19.12.2021. Munna and Subhash were also present at the room. Munna informed that he was not feeling well for about 2-3 days as he had pain in his stomach. I was not present when Munna had given money to Subhash. I was not present when Subhash gave medicine to Munna. I do not know from where Subhash had brought medicine for Munna. It is wrong to suggest that there was no quarrel between Munna and Subhash over money for medicine as no money was given to Subhash by Munna to buy medicine or that no medicine was given by Subhash to Munna. I came to know during incident that Munna had given around Rs. 200/- - Rs.
250/- to bring medicine. We started cooking food at about 01.00 p.m. - 01.30 p.m. on 19.12.2021. I do not know whether accused Munna had lent Rs.20,000/- to Subhash. There are 2 rooms on 4th floor of the said property. Kitchen is outside our room.
My brother, namely, Jai Lal alongwith his family was residing in the another room on 4th floor. My brother was at his work place and my bhabhi had gone to market at the time of incident. My bhabi left her room around 1½ hours prior to the incident and she returned after hearing hue and cry due to incident. My bhabhi had not informed me that she was going to market.
*** *** *** We had not consumed liquor on that day. I alongwith Munna had gone to purchase raw mutton at about 11.00 a.m. Shyam Lal came to the room at about 12.00 noon. Subhash came to room at about 10.30 a.m. - 11.00 a.m. It is correct that all the food was cooked in kitchen. There was only one kitchen knife. Landlord was residing on ground floor of the said property. The colour of knife was yellow. We reached hospital at about 03.00 p.m. / 04.00 p.m. IO alongwith one police official came to hospital at about 10.00 p.m. I do not know the name of police official who accompanied IO to the hospital. I was not present when IO made enquiry from Shyam Lal. I alongwith Shyam Lal and IO had gone to police station on a motorcycle on that night at about 03.30 SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 36 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:08 +0530 a.m. IO had not conducted any written proceedings in PS. My statement Ex.PW2/A is in the handwriting of police official. My statement was recorded at about 04.00 a.m. We left for PS at about 12.00 midnight - 01.00 a.m. We reached PS within 10-15 minutes. We remained in PS till 03.00 a.m. - 04.00 a.m. From police station, I went to hospital. I went to my house in morning hours. I do not remember whether site plan Mark X was prepared in PS or not. Police did not enquire my bhabi in my presence. I do not know in how persons in the aforesaid property were examined by IO. I did not count the pages which were signed by me. IO obtained my signatures on 1-2 blank papers also in PS. IO did not record statement of any person in my presence. Perhaps, call at 100 was made by son of our landlord. I do not know whether Subhash had any illness / disease prior to the date of incident. I had not informed doctor as to who had stabbed Subhash. It is wrong to suggest that I had not informed doctor as to who had stabbed Subhash as Subhash injured himself. I signed Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C at my room. No public person from outside came during altercation between Munna and Subhash. Police did not seize knife in my presence. IO did not prepare sketch of knife in my presence. Subhash was not fit for giving his statement in hospital. It is wrong to suggest that accused Munna left the room after altercation between him and Subhash and returned to room at about 07.00 -07.30 p.m. and arrested by the police. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot during the incident. It is wrong to suggest that accused Munna had not cleaned and broken the knife in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding aforesaid facts as being relative of injured Subhash. It is wrong to suggest that Subhash injured himself with knife or that falsely implicated Munna in order to avoid his liability of Rs. 20,000/- or that I have deposed falsely to support the false case of my relative. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of chacha Subhash.
*** *** *** Mr. Subhash Mehto is my uncle (chacha). When the accused stabbed Subhash Mehto, we were focusing to save Subhash Mehto as he was bleeding from his stomach. I had not tried to catch the accused. It is wrong to suggest that the accused was not present in the room during the incident. The accused remained in the room till we left for SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 37 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:12 +0530 hospital. I do not know whether there was any plier in the said room. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely implicated the accused at the instance of Subhash Mehto. It is wrong to suggest that we had broken the said knife and planted upon the accused, namely, Munna as knife cannot be broken with hands. It is wrong to suggest that Subhash Mehto suffered injury by some other knife and not by the aforesaid knife. It is wrong to suggest that the accused had already left before Subhash Mehto sustained injury.
It is correct that I do not know about the whereabouts of the accused after I alongwith Subhash Mehto and Shyamal Mehto left the room for hospital. I did not notice as to how the knife was broken. It may have been broken during stabbing. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of Subhash Mehto."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Germane for the purpose of present discourse to refer to the deposition of PW-3/Shyamal Mehto, who inter alia deposed in his testimony that on 19.12.2021 at about 03:00 p.m., he/PW-3 along with his brother-in-law (jija), Ajay; chacha, Subhash Mehto and the accused, Munna were having lunch at the spot. Further, as per PW-3, accused, Munna, who was correctly identified by PW-3 in Court, was suffering with pain in stomach and had given money to Subhash Mehto to bring medicine for him. PW-3 further avowed that Subhash Mehto had brought medicine for Munna and handed over the accused. However, accused did not get any relief from the said medicine. Congruently, PW-3 asserted that during the lunch, Munna demanded his money, back from Subhash. However, Subhash replied that he had already purchased medicine with the said money, handed over the same to Munna and that he did not have any money. Consequently, as per PW-3, accused got angry and threatened Subhash to kill him. Thereafter, as per PW-3, accused picked a kitchen knife, which was kept near him and stabbed SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 38 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:19 +0530 Subhash in his stomach. Further, as per PW-3, while he was taking care of Subhash, the accused cleaned the aforesaid knife with a cloth and broke it as well as threw it in the room. PW-3 also avowed that since blood was oozing from Subhash's stomach, he/PW-3 tied a gamcha around victim's stomach and thereafter PW-3 and Ajay, immediately took Subhash to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi in Ajay's auto-rickshaw, where the victim was got admitted. Pertinently, PW-3 identified the knife (Ex. MO-1), deployed by the accused at the time of the occurrence as well as the clothes worn by the victim/Subhash Mehto at the time of occurrence (Ex. MO-2). Apposite here to reproduce the relevant extracts from PW-3's cross-examination, as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Advocate for the accused.
I have studied upto 5th standard. On the date of incident, I alongwith my brother-in-law (Jija), namely, Ajay, Jai Ram, Subhash and the accused, namely, Munna were residing on 4th floor of H. No. B-1929, Gali No. 55, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. My brother-in-law Ajay, Munna and Jai Ram were residing in the aforesaid property for more than one year prior to the date of incident. Subhash started residing with us around one month prior to date of incident. There are 2 rooms at 4th floor of the said property. Jai Lal, brother of my jija Ajay alongwith his family is residing in the other room of 4th floor. Our kitchen is outside of our room on 4th floor. Jai Lal is working as auto-driver.
I do not remember whether Jai Lal was present in his room on 19.12.2021. However, his wife and children were present in their room. I had gone to my work in evening hours of 18.12.2021 and returned at about 12.00 noon on 19.12.2021. We all cook our food for all of us jointly. We used to do our household works depending on availability and convenience. Our household works were not distributed between us. Accused Munna was suffering from pain in stomach. Subhash used to do Jhar phoonk in his native village. He used to cure jaadu tona by way of jhar phoonk. We used to SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 39 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:23 +0530 borrow money from each other in case of necessity. I cannot say whether the accused, namely, Munna had lent Rs.20,000/- to Subhash. I do not know at what time Subhash left the room for his work on 19.12.2021. I do not know whether Subhash had any surgery of his stomach prior to 19.12.2021. I do not remember whether Munna had given money to Subhash for medicine in my presence. I do not know how much money was given by Munna to Subhash for medicine. I do not know what medicine was given to Munna by Subhash. Subhash had not given medicine to Munna in my presence. Medicine was already given before the incident on 19.12.2021 I do not know whether Munna had consumed the medicine on 19.12.2021 or earlier. Again said: He consumed medicine on 19.12.2021. I cannot tell exactly whether Munna had consumed medicine on 19.12.2021.
It is wrong to suggest that the accused Munna had not given any money to Subhash for medicine that is why I cannot say whether Munna consumed medicine or not. We were not drinking liquor on 19.12.2021. We had mutton curry (mutton fefda kaleji) in our lunch on 19.12.2021. After reaching my room at about 12.00 noon, I started cooking food at about 01.00 p.m. The accused Munna, Subhash, Ajay were present at our room when I reached there at about 12.00 noon. Our landlord was residing on the ground floor. Police did not make any enquiry from wife of Jai Lal in my presence. I was having lunch during altercation between Munna and Subhash. No public person came from outside of our room during their altercation. Munna and Subhash were abusing each other. No scuffle took place between them that is why I did not try to separate them. I had tried to pacify both of them during altercation. I do not know from where Subhash had brought medicine for Munna. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot at the time of incident. It is wrong to suggest that accused Munna had not cleaned and broken the knife in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding aforesaid facts as being relative of injured Subhash. It is wrong to suggest that Subhash injured himself with knife or that falsely implicated Munna in order to avoid his liability of Rs.20,000/- or that I have deposed falsely to support the false case of my relative. Subhash.
I do not remember the exact time when we reached hospital. We might have reached hospital at about 04.00 p.m. - 05.00 p.m. IO came to hospital SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 40 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:29:27 +0530 alone. I do not remember whether IO had obtained our signatures on documents or not. No other police official met us in hospital. IO remained in the hospital for about 1-2 hours. I do not remember at what time IO reached the hospital. IO made enquiry from me on the same day. I returned from hospital on next day in morning hours. I alongwith my jija Ajay and some relatives of Subhash stayed in hospital during night. I did not visit the said room after the incident as it was sealed. It was not sealed in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of my jija Ajay and my relative Subhash.
*** *** *** We were not consuming drink in the room. Again said: I do not remember whether any other person was consuming alcohol. I was not consuming alcohol. I did not get opportunity to prevent the accused from stabbing Subhash Mehto as we were having lunch. I was busy in rescuing Subhash Mehto after he was stabbed by the accused and I had not tried to apprehend the accused. The accused remained in the room till we left alongwith Subhash Mehto for hospital. I had not informed my landlord about the injury caused to Subhash Mehto. I cannot say whether the aforesaid knife can be broken with hands. It is wrong to suggest that I had informed the landlord about the incident that there was quarrel between Ajay and Subhash (chacha bhatija). It is wrong to suggest that Subhash Mehto suffered injury by some other knife and not by the aforesaid knife. It is wrong to suggest that the accused had already left before Subhash Mehto sustained injury. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of Subhash Mehto."
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Conspicuously, this Court deems it pertinent here to make a reference to the deposition of PW-10/Saurabh, who proclaimed that he was residing at H. No. 1929/55, Gali No. 55, B Block, Shiv Kunj, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi along with his family and working as Ola cab driver, at the relevant point in time. As per PW-10, the said property was owned by his/PW-10's mother namely, Ms. Daagshree and the accused along with other persons, namely, Subhash, Ajay and Shyam Lal SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 41 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:31 +0530 were residing as tenant at the fourth floor of the said premise/house. Further, as per PW-10, on 19.12.2021, at about 03:00 p.m., he was sleeping in house at the ground floor of the said building and he/PW-10 heard hue and cry. Consequently, as per PW-10, when he woke up and went outside, he saw that his tenants, Ajay and Shyam Lal were taking Subhash, who was in injured condition, in an auto-rickshaw. As per PW-10, he made enquiry from Shyam Lal and Ajay about injured condition of Subhash, whereupon, he was informed that the accused, Munna had stabbed Subhash in his stomach with a kitchen knife. Further, as per PW-10, he was informed that they (Ajay and Shyam Lal) were taking Subhash to Trauma Centre. Correspondingly, PW-10 asserted that his father came to the spot and he/PW-10, informed him of the said facts and thereupon PW-10 and his father, went to the fourth floor. PW-10 further avowed that accused Munna was found present in the room in a nervous state and they made enquiries from the accused about the incident. It was further asserted by PW-10 that accused Munna informed them that he had stabbed Subhash with kitchen knife during a quarrel over an issue of medicine, when they were having lunch. Thereafter, aper PW-10, he along with his father returned to the ground floor and he/PW-10 made a call at 100 from the mobile phone of his father, bearing; 9818912542. Subsequently, police is asserted to have reached there and arrested Munna. Needless to mention, PW-10 correctly identified accused in Court. Relevantly, during the course of his cross examination, PW-10 asserted, as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Advocate for accused, namely, Munna.
I have studied upto 10th class. I drive Ola Cab during night and my shift keeps on changing. On 19.12.2021, I came to my house at about 06.00 a.m.
- 07.00 a.m. from my duty. There are 6 members i.e. SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 42 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:37 +0530 myself, my father, my mother, my sister, my brother and my wife. When I heard hue and cry on that day, my brother and sister were away for their tuition class, my wife was at her parental house, my mother was with me at our house and my father was outside of our house. I do not know whether local police official or PCR van came to the place of occurrence when I made call at 100 as I had gone outside for some work after making call. I had met police officials on that day at my house at about 04.00 p.m. - 05.00 p.m. I had not given my statement to police at that time. (Vol.: I gave my statement later on.) There are 2 rooms on each floor of our house except ground floor where we resides. There were tenants in 6 rooms of our house. Families used to reside in the said 6 rooms. I had not checked all the rooms on that day to ascertain whether all the tenants were present in their rooms. I do not remember whether any of our tenant was present outside our house when I met police officials. A family was residing in another room adjoining the room where incident took place at 4th floor. The name of wife of the said tenant was Ms. Kanchan. The said family was relative of the tenants of the room where incident took place. I do not know the name of nephew of Subhash. I am not aware whether Ajay is nephew of Subhash. It is wrong to suggest that I had not seen Ajay and Shyam Lal taking injured Subhash to hospital. It is wrong to suggest that I had not met accused, namely, Munna in room at 4th floor or that the accused had not stated anything to us regarding incident. It is correct that my father made call at 100.
I do not know whether the accused, namely, Munna returned to his room at about 05.00 p.m. and he was locked in his room and handed over to police. (Vol.: My father might be knowing the same.) I did not notice how many persons were present in another room at 4th floor when I went there alongwith my father. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at my house on the day of incident. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of Subhash."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Conspicuously, in light of the foregoing, this Court would now proceed with the evaluation of the material placed on record, being wary of the arguments addressed by/on behalf of the accused as well as State. However, before proceeding further, SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 43 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:41 +0530 this Court deems it pertinent to outrightly deal with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused inter alia to the effect that the conviction of the accused cannot be premised on the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in the absence of any corroboration of any independent witness(es). Noticeably, in this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to outrightly note that it is conscious of repeatedly avowals4 of superior courts that that there is no impediment in convicting a person even on the testimony of a sole/single eyewitness if his version is clear and reliable, for the rule of evidence is that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Noticeably, in this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367, wherein the Hon'ble Court unambiguously noted as under;
"9. ... This Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time- honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Correspondingly, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, wherein the Hon'ble Court 4 Kusti Mallaiah v. State of A.P., (2013) 12 SCC 680.
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 44 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:45 +0530
enunciated the principles to be kept in mind, while appreciating the evidence of an injured eye-witness, as under;
"26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind:
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. 26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. 26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 45 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:49 +0530 forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Here, this Court deems it further apposite here to note that mere because prosecution opts not to produce other public witnesses, asserted to be present or would have been present at the time of commission of incident, cannot, in the considered opinion of this Court, be always read against the prosecution in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200, wherein the Hon'ble Court, unambiguously observed;
"34. A mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it."
(Emphasis supplied)
29. Pertinently, Ld. Counsel for the accused has further strenuously contended that there are material contradictions, variations and/or improvements, in the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, belying the version put forth by the said witnesses as well as the case brought forth against the accused. However, in order to properly deal with the said contention, this Court deems it apposite here to iterate and explore the judicial precedents governing the law of contradictions in the testimony of the witness. Ergo, in this regard, this Court deems it pertinent SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 46 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:29:53 +0530 here to make a reference to the decision in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, noted as under;
"10. 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 scrutinise 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. 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. 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. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully giving due weight to the comments made by the learned counsel for the respondent and the reasons assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to us trustworthy and credible."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 47 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:29:57 +0530
30. Correspondingly, reference is made to the decision in Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in an akin context, remarked as under;
"24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. 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. But 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Evidently, from the conspectus of the above, it is quite manifest that minor discrepancies, which do not go into the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, cannot be permitted to be annexed with any undue weight. In fact, it is trite law5 that the discrepancies, which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution and those which emanate due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance and must necessarily be discarded. The rationale behind the same is quite obvious, as elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, inter alia recording as under;
"30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the 5 Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241 SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 48 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:30:02 +0530 court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.
"9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility."*** Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited..."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Consequently, to recapitulate, in order to disregard the testimony of a witness, it is imperative that the same is replete with material improvements, contradictions and variation. However, the superior courts have persistently enunciated that law provides for due concession to marginal variations and normal discrepancies in the statement(s) and testimony(ies) of a witness, which are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, such as lapse of memory due to passage of time or that due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Ergo, in light of the foregoing revered principles, when the testimonies of various prosecution witness, including that of PW-1/Subhash Mehto, PW-2/Ajay Kumar, PW-3/Shyamal Mehto and PW-10/Saurabh are conscientious analysed, in light of other material brought on record, this Court finds itself difficult to be convinced with the aforenoted SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 49 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:30:06 +0530 contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In this regard, this Court outrightly records that from a careful reading of the testimonies of the said witnesses, it is noted by this Court that PW-1/Subhash Mehto, PW-2/Ajay Kumar, and PW-3/Shyamal Mehto have consistently deposed of the incident in question as well as the role of the appellant herein. In particular, it is reiterated that, PW-1/Subhash Mehto, PW-2/Ajay Kumar, and PW-3/Shyamal Mehto have all steadily asserted that on 19.12.2021 at about 02.30-03.00 p.m., when they, i.e., PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 along with the accused were present at the fourth floor of premise bearing H. No. B-1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godown, Sant Nagar, Burari (i.e., the 'spot'), whilst consuming their food, an altercation ensued between the complainant/PW-1 and the accused regarding money issues.
Markedly, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 further unswervingly asserted that the accused was displeased over some money issues, paid by him to the complainant to get him medicines in the past and he/the accused asked for the return of the said amount. However, when the victim/PW-1 declared that he had already spent that amount on accused's medicines, the accused picked up a knife which was kept near him and stabbed the victim/PW-1 on his/victim's stomach, however, not before the accused had already declared his intention to cause injury/harm to the victim. Thereafter, as per the said witnesses, PW-3 tried a gamchha (cloth) around his/PW-1's stomach as he was bleeding and he/the victim was rushed to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines in PW-3's auto- rickshaw by PW-2 and PW-3. Here, it is further pertinent to reiterate that PW-10/Saurabh proclaimed that on the said date, i.e., on 19.12.2021, at around 03:00 p.m., he was sleeping in house at the ground floor of the said building and he/PW-10 heard hue and SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 50 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:30:11 +0530 cry. Consequently, as per PW-10, when he woke up and went outside, he saw that his tenants, Ajay and Shyam Lal were taking Subhash, who was in injured condition, in an auto-rickshaw. As per PW-10, he made enquiry from Shyam Lal and Ajay about injured condition of Subhash, whereupon, he was informed that the accused, Munna had stabbed Subhash in his stomach with a kitchen knife. Further, as per PW-10, he was informed that they (Ajay and Shyam Lal) were taking Subhash to Trauma Centre. Correspondingly, PW-10 asserted that his father came to the spot and he/PW-10, informed him of the said facts and thereupon PW-10 and his father, went to the fourth floor. PW-10 further avowed that accused Munna was found present in the room in a nervous state and they made enquiries from the accused about the incident. It was further asserted by PW-10 that accused Munna informed them that he had stabbed Subhash with kitchen knife during a quarrel over an issue of medicine, when they were having lunch. Thereafter, aper PW-10, he along with his father returned to the ground floor and he/PW-10 made a call at 100 from the mobile phone of his father, bearing; 9818912542.
33. Apposite to note here that the aforesaid witnesses, i.e., PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10, were thoroughly cross examined by/on behalf of the accused. However, upon scrupulous analysis of the depositions of the said witnesses, it is noted that nothing has emerged under their cross examination so as to belie their consistent stand on the aforesaid aspects. Nonetheless, it has been asserted on behalf of the accused that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have falsely implicated the accused in the present case owing to some money related issues between PW-1 and the accused and that their testimonies cannot be relied, being that of related witness. In fact, in this regard, this Court SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 51 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:30:17 +0530 deems it pertinent here to reiterate that the accused, adduced himself in his defence, as DW-1 and during the course of his deposition, accused/DW-1 inter alia proclaimed that on 19.12.2021 at around 01:30 p.m., he along with Ajay, Shyamlal and Subhas were eating food in their room and he/the accused had asked, Subhash for the return of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), which he/DW-1/accused had lent to him/Subhash. However, upon this, as per the accused, Subhash/victim is asserted to have told him/DW-1, "mainay tere upar Jhad Phookh kiya tha usmay teray paise kat gye" ('I have done magic on you, your money was expended on the same').
Correspondingly, DW-1/accused avowed that when he insisted on the return of his money, Ajay, Shyamlal and Subhash started to abuse as well as threaten him/DW-1 that they would beat him up. However, as per the accused, he left from the spot at that point in time and when he returned to the spot at around 05:00 p.m., it was determined by him/DW-1 that the door of their room was locked. Thereafter, when he approached the landlord, as per DW-1, he was informed that Ajay, Subhash and Shyamlal had engaged in a scuffle and that Subhash was taken to Hospital. Congruently, as per the accused, he was subsequently, falsely implicated in the present case.
34. However, when the aforenoted version of incident, proclaimed by the accused to be the reason for his alleged false implication in the present case is conscientiously evaluated, in light of the material brought on record, this Court finds the same to be quite uninspiring and unworthy of credence. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that thought the accused had asserted during the trial as well as under his deposition that he had lent a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 52 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:30:21 +0530 victim/PW-1, however, the accused has nowhere brought forth any evidence/material either in his own deposition or under the cross examination of any of the prosecution witnesses, including that of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as to the date, time and place as to when such monetary transaction was undertaken or as to how the said amount came to be alleged transferred by the accused to the victim. Correspondingly, the version of the incident that he/the accused had left the spot and subsequently on his return, he came to know from the landlord that Subhash/victim had been shifted to Hospital by Ajay and Shamlal, owing to their dispute, does not find support even from the deposition of the said landlord/PW-12/Rakesh and his son, i.e., PW-10/Saurabh. On the contrary, it is seen from the records that PW-10 and PW-12, both, asserted that when they went to the spot, i.e., fourth floor of the aforenoted premise, upon PW-10's informing PW-12 of the victim being shifted to the Hospital by PW-2 and PW-3 in an injured state, they noted that accused Munna was present in the said room and thereafter, PW-10 made a call to the police from the mobile phone of his father/PW-12's phone. In fact, as aforenoted, PW-10/Subhash went ahead to proclaim that as they proceeded to the spot and noted the accused present there, the accused confessed that he/the accused had stabbed the victim, Subhash with a kitchen knife during quarrel over an issue of medicine, when they were having lunch. Correspondingly, it is seen from the records that during the course of his cross examination, DW-1/accused affirmed that till date, he lodged no complaint either before the concerned police officials or before the court to the effect that he was falsely implicated in the present case. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, this Court reiterates that the version of the incident put forth by the accused in his defence is SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 53 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:30:25 +0530 not only an afterthought, rather, contrary to the material brought forth on record and uninspiring. On the contrary, as aforenoted, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have been consistent in their version of incident as well as the role of the accused in the present case. Correspondingly, as noted herein, testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 further find support from the deposition of PW-10 in so far as the accused is asserted to have voluntarily confessed to the commission of incident by him in the presence of the said witness, soon after the incident. Needless to reiterate, nothing has emerged under the cross examination of said witnesses so as to belie their versions, besides no reason, has surfaced even under the cross examination of PW-10 so as to implicate any intention or motive on the part of PW-10, to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.
35. In as much as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, pertaining to relationship between PW-1/Subhash Mehto, PW-2/Ajay Kumar and PW-3/Shyamal Mehto to belie their depositions is concerned, same too, fails to impress this Court in light of the foregoing observations as well as the repeated avowals by superior courts in akin cases. In fact, this Court is cognizant of the law, tenaciously reiterated by superior courts, that merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an 'interested witness'. In fact, in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan, (2009) 14 SCC 267, explicitly remarked as under;
"35. Very recently in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(2008) 12 SCC 173: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 339: AIR 2008 SC 2436] this Court had the occasion to deal with the question of creditworthiness of the evidence of the relatives of the victim. On a review of several decisions on the SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 54 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:30:30 +0530 point, including Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1953 Cri LJ 1465 : 1954 SCR 145] , Masalti v. State of U.P. [AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226 : (1964) 8 SCR 133] and Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2003) 2 SCC 661 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 664] , it has been observed that though the Court has to scrutinise such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of the interest of such witness in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterised as an "interested" witness. The term "interested"
postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive."
(Emphasis supplied)
36. Reference in respect of the foregoing is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, wherein the Hon'ble Court in analogous terms, remarked as under;
"7. ...High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of PW 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased", and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is, she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an "interested" witness. She is related to the deceased. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be "interested". In the instant case PW 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 55 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:30:36 +0530
37. Quite understandably, it is seen from the records that PW-2/Ajay Kumar and PW-3/Shyamal Mehto were both, natural witnesses and only possible eyewitnesses in the circumstances brought forth. As aforenoted, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 consistently asserted that the incident had occurred at the spot, when the said witnesses and the accuses were having food and the accused suddenly inflicted stab injury on the victim over past money related issues. Ergo, under such circumstances, the said witnesses being natural and only possible witnesses in the present case, cannot be discarded, even in the considered opinion of this Court, owing to their relationship with each other, especially when aforenoted nothing has surfaced under their depositions/testimonies so as to disprove/belie their consistent stand. Congruently, considering that the incident is stated to have happened in a room, where no other public persons/witnesses were present, and as noted herein that the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have been consistent regarding the incident as well as role of the accused, non-joining of any independent witness in the instant case, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not occasion into any benefit/allowance in favour of the accused.
38. In as much as the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused pertaining to non-naming of the accused under DD No. 105A (Ex. PW18/A) is concerned, this Court notes that from a perusal of the material brought forth on record that the said call was not made either by the victim or by the eyewitnesses of the incident in question, so as to explicate the entire version of the incident. On the contrary, as aforenoted, PW-2 and PW-3 deposed under their respective testimonies that they immediately rushed the victim/PW-1 to a Hospital/Trauma Centre for his SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 56 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:30:40 +0530 treatment, considering the nature of his injuries and the statement of the complainant/PW-2 was subsequently recorded at Trauma Centre, where the accused was explicitly named under the complaint, Ex. PW2/A. Ergo, under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, non-naming of the accused under the PCR call would not have much bearing, so as to belie the version of incident put forth against the accused. Concomitantly, this Court is further not convinced with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that there has been an unexplained delay in the recording of FIR in the instant case or that the benefit of such delay, ought to enure in favour of the accused. Further, this Court is also not perused with the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused that since PW-2 and PW-3 made no endeavour to catch the accused at the spot, their depositions, ought to be discarded, in entirety. On the contrary, when the depositions of PW-2 and PW-3 are seen in conjunction with the depositions of PW-17/HC Ajay and PW-19/IO/SI Shankar, the said aspects, are unmistakably, elucidated. In this regard, it is outrightly reiterated that as per PW-2 and PW-3, soon after infliction of stab injuries on the victim by the accused, both, PW-2 and PW-3 shifted the victim to Trauma Centre in PW-3's autorickshaw. In fact, PW-2/Ajay Kumar explicitly asserted during the course of his cross examination that the victim was his chacha/paternal uncle and that when the accused stabbed the victim, Subhash Mehto, they (PW-2 and PW-3) were focusing on saving the victim as he was bleeding from his stomach and that he/PW-2 had not tried to catch the accused at that point in time. Similarly, PW-3/Shyamal Mehto inter alia asserted during the course of his cross examination, "I was busy in rescuing Subhash Mehto after he was stabbed by the accused SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 57 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:30:44 +0530 and I had not tried to apprehend the accused". Apposite to further note that PW-19/IO/SI Shankar explicated during his cross examination that DD No. 105A was marked to him at around 06:54 p.m. on 19.12.2021 and that within half an hour thereof, he/PW-19 and PW-17 reached at the spot. Correspondingly, PW-19 affirmed under his cross examination that the crime team was called at the spot at about 07:30 p.m. and thereafter, he/PW-19 reached at the Hospital from the spot at around 09:30 p.m. Further, as per PW-19, in the Hospital, first, he collected victim's MLC as well as the exhibits of the injured and thereafter, statement of the complainant was recorded at around 10:45 p.m., whereafter, PW-17/HC Ajay Panwar proceeded to the police station for the registration of FIR. Needless to mention that the said facts stand duly corroborated under the deposition of PW-17/HC Ajay Panwar, who inter alia deposed regarding him reaching at the spot along with PW-19/IO/SI Shankar as well as of him/PW-17's getting the FIR registered at the instance of the IO; as well as from the deposition of PW-18/HC Parshuram, who inter alia deposed that on 19.12.2021, on receipt of a rukka from HC Ajay, he got the instant FIR recorded.
39. Ergo, in light of the foregoing circumstances, this Court reiterates that the factum of non-apprehension of the accused by PW-2 and PW-3 at the spot and that of registration of instant FIR at around 11:11 p.m., for the incident stated to have occurred at 03:00 p.m., on 19.12.2021, in the considered opinion of this Court, stands duly explicated in the instant case from the deposition of various prosecution witnesses and other material brought on record. Here, it is further pertinent to note that the SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 58 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:30:49 +0530 superior courts6 have persistently proclaimed that delay in lodging an FIR by itself cannot be always regarded as sufficient ground to draw an adverse inference against the case of the prosecution. Rather, under such circumstances, courts are obligated to ascertain the causes for the delay, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the law is trite that if delay in lodging FIR has been explained from evidence on record, no adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution merely on this ground. Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 690, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court noted in an akin context, as under;
"13. The attack on prosecution cases on the ground of delay in lodging FIR has almost bogged down as a stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases. It is a recurring feature in most of the criminal cases that there would be some delay in furnishing the first information to the police. It has to be remembered that law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course a prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Barring these two plus points for a promptly lodged FIR the demerits of the delayed FIR cannot operate as fatal to any prosecution case. It cannot be overlooked that even a promptly lodged FIR is not an unreserved guarantee for the genuineness of the version incorporated therein.
14. When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed the court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of time. This kind of unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban people also. They might not immediately think of going to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack of 6 Hariprasad v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 2 SCC 557.
SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 59 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:30:54 +0530
adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous information about the incident."
(Emphasis supplied)
40. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518, reiterated in respect of the foregoing, as under;
"10. *** There is no hard-and-fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and for this a host of circumstances like the condition of the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the hospital and the police station etc. have to be taken into consideration. There is no mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging of the FIR. In this connection it will be useful to take note of the following observation made by this Court in Tara Singh v. State of Punjab [1991 Supp (1) SCC 536 :
1991 SCC (Cri) 710 : AIR 1991 SC 63] : (SCC p. 541, para 4) The delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, one cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief- stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 60 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:30:58 +0530 circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report. Of course, in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the courts should be cautious to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.***"
(Emphasis supplied)
41. In so far as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused pertaining to alleged discrepancy regarding blood stains on the recovered knife (Ex. MO-1) is concerned, it is noted that nowhere under their respective depositions, PW-8/SI Inderjeet Singh or PW-9/SI Sudarshan Pillain, deposed that there were no blood stains on the recovered knife. In fact, even under his cross examination, PW-8 merely asserted that he had not seen blood on the pieces of knife. Ergo, under such circumstances, depositions of PW-8 and PW-9, in the considered opinion of this Court, are not sufficient to discredit the deposition of PW-17/HC Ajay Panwar, who asserted under his cross examination that the recovered knife was found in two pieces, lying at the spot and there was blood on the said knife; and the testimony of PW-19/IO/SI Shankar, who inter alia avowed under his cross examination, "...The blood stained knife, the exhibits were lifted from the spot after the inspection by the crime team and the same were taken into possession before proceeding to the hospital. The knife was found broken in two pieces. The knife was having a SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 61 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:31:01 +0530 small blood traces on it...". In fact, it is pertinent to note that PW-15/Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini affirmed under her deposition that the broken pieces of knife handed over to her for examination bore blood stains, which were determined by her/PW-15 to correspond/match with the blood samples of the victim. Needless to mention that PW-15 asserted that the said blood sample was received at FSL, Rohini as two blood vials, sealed with the seal of 'GNCTD SUSHRUTA TRAUMA Centre', whilst the broken piece of knife was received in sealed plastic box sealed with the seal of 'SM'. Apposite to further note that when the testimony of PW-15 is seen in conjunction with the depositions of PW-7/Dr. Dhanasurya, Junior Resident, Sushruta Trauma Centre, who deposed that the blood samples of the victim were handed over by him in sealed condition to the IO; PW-17/HC Ajay Panwar and PW-19/IO/SI Shankar, who inter alia deposed of the lifting of broken pieces of knife and seizing the same after keeping the same in a transparent plastic box, sealed with the seal of 'SM' vide memo Ex. PW17/B as well as of the seizing of the sealed parcels, handed over by the concerned Doctor in Trauma Centre to the IO, seized vide memo Ex. PW17/C; and PW-4/ASI Satender, who inter alia deposed of handing over of sealed samples by IO in malkhana on 19.12.2021 vide entry at Serial no. 1468 in Reg. No. 19 (Ex. PW4/A(Colly.)), in the considered opinion of this Court, possibility of any manipulation in the instant case stands ruled out.
42. Analogously, in the considered opinion of this Court, not much credence is to afforded to the non-explanation for reasons of breaking of kitchen knife or to the alleged discrepancy regarding the place of arrest of the accused in the SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 62 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:31:05 +0530 instant case or the inability of the victim to disclose the particulars of the medicines stated to be purchased by him for the accused. Needless in this regard to observe that in light of the foregoing circumstances, such omissions, if any, cannot, in the considered opinion of this Court, be considered to be material so as to belie the testimonies of various prosecution witness, as hereinunder observed. Needless to reiterate that the law is trite that mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. Even otherwise, PW-3/Shyamal inter alia deposed under his testimony that the accused, Munna cleaned the knife after stabbing the same in the victim's stomach and broke the same, before he/the accused threw the same in the room. Pertinent to further note that though, it has been further asserted on behalf of the accused that the injuries on the victim were self-inflicted, however, the same do not find support from the material brought on record. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, though, PW-6/Dr. Vijay Kumar affirmed under his cross examination that the injuries on the victim could be possible due to self-infliction, however, PW-6 volunteered that the same were deep. Correspondingly, though, PW-7/Dr. Dhanasurya affirmed in his cross examination, "Such injury may be self inflicted", however, further asserted that the same would, "... depend upon mental condition of the person and circumstances of the person...". However, except such proclamation of Ld. Counsel of the accused, nothing has been brought forth on record to assert that the victim was under mental state to inflict such injuries solely to falsely implicate the accused. Needless to mention that though, it has been suggested by the accused under the cross examination of the victim that when the accused demanded his money back, SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 63 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:31:09 +0530 he/the victim inflicted injuries to self to falsely implicate the accused. However, as aforenoted, under his deposition, the accused/DW-1 asserted that upon victim's refusal to return his amount, he/accused left from the spot and it was later on that he came to know that the victim was shifted to Hospital with injuries. Clearly, the version of defence put forth by the accused is not only reconcilable, rather, does not find support from other material brought forth on record. Needless to reiterate that nowhere under the deposition of any of the witnesses, the accused has been able to demonstrate any propensity on the part of the victim to inflict injuries on self, solely to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. Further, this Court is also not convinced that mere presence of smell on alcohol in the victim's breath can be given any undue importance in the instant case, especially when PW-6/Dr. Vijay Kumar specifically deposed that though, there was smell of alcohol in victim's breath, however, he/PW-7 could not depose as to whether the victim was drunk at the time of his arrival in the Hospital. Lastly, in as much as the arrest of accused is concerned, the said fact stands duly corroborated by the conjoint reading of the depositions of PW-2, PW-17 and PW-19, in light of accused's arrest memo, Ex.PW-2/B, bearing the signatures of all the said witnesses.
43. Consequently, in light of the foregoing, it is reiterated that PW-1/Subhash Mehto, PW-2/Ajay Kumar, and PW-3/Shyamal Mehto, consistently deposed that on 19.12.2021 at about 02.30-03.00 p.m., when they, i.e., PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 along with the accused were present at the fourth floor of premise bearing H. No. B-1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godown, Sant Nagar, Burari (i.e., the 'spot'), whilst consuming their food, an altercation ensued between the complainant/PW-1 and the accused SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 64 of 69 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:31:12 +0530 regarding money issues. Markedly, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 further unswervingly asserted that the accused was displeased over some money issues, paid by him to the complainant to get him medicines in the past and he/the accused asked for the return of the said amount. However, when the victim/PW-1 declared that he had already spent that amount on accused's medicines, the accused picked up a knife which was kept near him and stabbed the victim/PW-1 on his/victim's stomach. Thereafter, as per the said witnesses, PW-3 tried a gamchha (cloth) around his/PW-1's stomach as he was bleeding and he/the victim was rushed to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines in PW-3's auto-rickshaw by PW-2 and PW-3. Here, it is further pertinent to reiterate that PW-10/Saurabh proclaimed that on the said date, i.e., on 19.12.2021, at around 03:00 p.m., he was sleeping in house at the ground floor of the said building and he/PW-10 heard hue and cry. Consequently, as per PW-10, when he woke up and went outside, he saw that his tenants, Ajay and Shyam Lal were taking Subhash, who was in injured condition, in an auto-rickshaw. As per PW-10, he made enquiry from Shyam Lal and Ajay about injured condition of Subhash, whereupon, he was informed that the accused, Munna had stabbed Subhash in his stomach with a kitchen knife. Further, as per PW-10, he was informed that they (Ajay and Shyam Lal) were taking Subhash to Trauma Centre. Correspondingly, PW-10 asserted that his father came to the spot and he/PW-10, informed him of the said facts and thereupon PW-10 and his father, went to the fourth floor. PW-10 further avowed that accused Munna was found present in the room in a nervous state and they made enquiries from the accused about the incident. It was further asserted by PW-10 that accused Munna informed them that he had stabbed Subhash with kitchen knife SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 65 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:31:17 +0530 during a quarrel over an issue of medicine, when they were having lunch.
44. In as much as the satisfaction of the ingredients of the offence under Section 308 IPC in the instant case is concerned, it is noted that the accused inflicted injury on the victim, unprovoked and over the past dispute pertaining to money, as proclaimed by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, PW-1 specifically asserted under his deposition that before stabbing him with the knife on his stomach, the accused specifically proclaimed, "mera paisa kaise wapis dega? Mai tujhe maar dunga" ('how would you return my money? I would kill you'). Correspondingly, similar assertions were made by PW-1 and PW-3 in their respective depostions that the accused made clear of his intentions by oral assertions, before he inflicted injury on the victim. Here, it is further pertinent to note that the injury was inflicted on the stomach, being the vital part of the body of the victim/PW-1, leading to bleeding and hospitalization for several days. In fact, as aforenoted, PW-1 specially deposed that he remained under medical treatment in Hospital for many days and was discharged from Trauma Centre on 27.12.2021, after he was admitted on 19.12.2021 and thereafter, he/PW-1 was admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on 29.04.2022 and remained there till 11.05.2022 due to aforesaid injury. Needless to mention that the victim, further proved his injuries from his photographs, Ex.
PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3, depicting significant injuries to his vital body parts. Here, it is further pertinent to note that PW-6/Dr. Vijay Kumar and PW-7/Dr. Dhanasurya, both, proclaimed that the victim has sustained, clean incised wound of approx. 2*1 cm and 5 cm deep, with peritoneal breach, as also record under victim's MLC (Ex. PW6/A). Needless to mention PW-11/Dr. Ashish Sagar SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 66 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:31:22 +0530 Tyagi opined the nature of victim's injury as grievous under his MLC. Apposite to further refer to the deposition of PW-13/Dr. Salil Yadav who inter alia deposed that the victim was admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on 29.04.2022 and discharged on 11.05.2022. As per PW-13, the victim was diagnosed with, "...loop ileostomy post status exploratory laparatomy with primary repair at transverse colon with loop ileostomy in view of stab injury...". Congruently, while asserting that the victim was operated on 02.05.2022, he/PW-13 also proved victim's discharge summary (Ex. PW13/A) as well as his treatment documents (Ex. PW13/B).
Congruently, PW-14/Dr. Atulanand Shirodkar also proved the documents pertaining to treatment of the victim as Ex. PW14/A. Further, it is noted from the analysis of the case property and seizure memo(s), including memo Ex. PW17/B, the weapon deployed in the instant case is a kitchen knife/chaku inter alia of total length of around 23 cm, constituting broken pieces (also as per the sketch Ex. PW17/A), which weapon was opined by PW-11/Dr. Ashish Sagar Tyagi, Senior Resident, Department of Cardiothorasic and Vascular Surgery, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, under his report (Ex. PW11/A) have possibly occasioned the injury on the victim. In fact, PW-11 specifically proclaimed under his said report, "...The blade of the knife is broken with larger piece of around 8-9 cm and smaller stub of 2-3 cm. Handle (plastic) of 10 cm approx...Such an injury in my opinion may occur using the above stated object/weapon...". Ergo, in light of the foregoing circumstances, it is reiterated that in the considered opinion of this Court, ingredients of commission of offence under Section 308 IPC stands proved against the accused in the instant case. Needless in light of the foregoing to accentuate, while inflicting said injury on the vital body part of the victim, SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 67 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:31:26 +0530 necessary mens rea, i.e., knowledge of the injuries being likely to be of fatal consequences, unmistakably stands attributed on the accused, besides, as aforenoted the actus rea is proved from the material and deposition of the witnesses, hereinunder observed. CONCLUSION:
45. Conclusively, in light of the foregoing discussion, it is reiterated that from the material placed on record and arguments addressed on behalf of the State as well as by/on behalf of the accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has been able to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' against the accused, namely, Munna for the offence under Section 308 IPC, in as much as, PW-1/Subhash Mehto, PW-2/Ajay Kumar, and PW-3/Shyamal Mehto have all steadily asserted that on 19.12.2021 at about 02.30-03.00 p.m., when they, i.e., PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 along with the accused were present at the fourth floor of premise bearing H. No. B-1929/55, Gali No. 55, near Dal Godown, Sant Nagar, Burari (i.e., the 'spot'), whilst consuming their food, an altercation ensued between the complainant/PW-1 and the accused regarding money issues. Markedly, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 further unswervingly asserted that the accused was displeased over some money issues, paid by him to the complainant to get him medicines in the past and he/the accused asked for the return of the said amount. However, when the victim/PW-1 declared that he had already spent that amount on accused's medicines, the accused picked up a knife which was kept near him and stabbed the victim/PW-1 on his/victim's stomach. Correspondingly, as aforenoted PW-10/Saurabh inter alia proclaimed that when he and his father, went to the fourth floor of the premise/spot, accused Munna was found present in the room in a nervous state and they made enquiries from the SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 68 of 69 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.03.30 16:31:37 +0530 accused about the incident, whereupon he/the accused informed them that he had stabbed Subhash with kitchen knife during a quarrel over an issue of medicine, when they were having lunch. Congruently, in light of the deposition of various prosecution witnesses, medical records of the victim, type and nature of injury sustained by the victim, conduct of the accused and other factors, hereinunder noted, this Court further reiterates that even the necessary mens rea and actus rea stands duly proved/attributed against the accused so as to attract the provisions under Section 308 IPC, beyond a pale of doubt in the facts and circumstances brought forth.
46. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, accused namely, Munna is convicted of the charge(s)/offence under Sections 308 IPC. Consequently, let the accused be heard on the aspect of sentence.
47. Consequently, issue notice to SHO, PS. Wazirabad to submit report of antecedents/previous involvements of the convict, Munna. Also, issue notice to concerned Jail Superintendent to submit conduct report and nominal roll of the said convict. Further, a copy of the present judgment is given dasti to the convict. Needless to mention that compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India, (2024) 16 SCC 1, has been carried out. Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 16:31:41 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 30.03.2026. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC No. 218/2022 State v. Munna Page 69 of 69