Delhi District Court
Sc No.219/18, Fir No.278/14 State vs . Ashok Kumar @ Shokki on 7 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, (SHAHDARA DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
SC No.219/18
FIR No.278/14
PS Vivek Vihar
U/S 308/34 IPC
In the matter of :
State
Vs.
Ashok Kumar @ Shokki
S/o Vaishnav Dass
R/o H. No. A-169,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ......Accused
Date of Institution: 05.03.2018
Date of reserving Order: 31.01.2020
Date of order: 07.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.04.2014 at about 09:56 pm, a call was received on 100 no. from Sh. Deepak Sharma/ complainant (PW-1) that some persons known to him had assaulted him by knife. The said call was automatically recorded and was assigned to PW-7, ASI Harender Singh, who alongwith his staff and PCR van approached PW-1/injured and moved him to the hospital. In the meantime, the information was conveyed to the concerned police station Vivek Vihar too, which was recorded vide DD No.78B, Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, the said DD No.78B was SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 1 of 18 marked to Investigating Officer/SI Sanjeev Kumar (PW-8). PW-8 went to the place of incident, where he was informed that the injured had been shifted to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. Thereafter, he reached at the hospital, where he met PW-1/injured and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A, wherein he inter-alia stated that accused alongwith his nephews had assaulted him on his head with an iron angle. He prepared rukka Ex.PW8/A on the basis of the said statement and got the present FIR registered. During investigation, site plan was prepared by PW-8 at instance of PW-1. On 21.05.2014, the accused surrendered before the Court and after having sought permission from the Court, PW-8 arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW6/B. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/C. Subsequently, during police custody, the weapon of offence i.e. iron rod/angle was also recovered and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D. After conclusion of the investigation, challan was filed against the accused with further submission that other co-accused could not be traced.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. P. C., the present case was committed to the Sessions Court.
3. On 04.08.2018, charge was framed against the accused under Section 308 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses.
PW-1 is the complainant/injured, Deepak Sharma. He has SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 2 of 18 stated that on 21.04.2014 at about 09:00 pm, he had gone to his shop. He used to visit his shop twice a day regularly. Accused had put up a grill on the terrace of his shop. He was having a welding shop adjacent to shop of PW-1 and he (accused) was standing at his shop at that time. He told PW-1 that the grill belonged to him and his (PW-1) shop also belonged to him (accused). Thereafter, PW-1 and accused started having an altercation with each other. The house of the accused was just opposite to his shop and he called out his bhanjas (nephews). They (nephews) started beating him (PW-1) with their hands and legs. PW-1 fell down on the ground. Thereafter, accused ran towards his shop and brought out an iron angle. Nephews of the accused caught hold PW-1 and exhorted him (accused) to beat PW-1. Accused then gave a blow on his (PW-1) head with an iron angle. PW-1 started bleeding. His shirt also became blood stained. Thereafter, he went to his house and made a call on 100 number. Police arrived and took him to hospital, where he was medically examined and treated. He tendered his statement as Ex.PW1/A, site plan as Ex.PW1/C, seizure memo of iron angle as Ex.PW1/D and his thumb impression on his MLC as Ex.PW1/E. He also identified the iron angle as Ex.P-1, which was produced before the Court during his examination.
PW-2 is HC Naresh Kumar. He tendered the DD No.78B dated 21.10.2014 as Ex.PW2/A. PW-3 is ASI Rajender Kumar. He tendered the endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW3/A and certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW3/B. SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 3 of 18 PW-4 is W/Ct. Rubina. She tendered the copy of PCR form as Ex.PW4/A. PW-5 is Dr. A. Saha. He tendered the MLC of the injured Ex.PW1/E. He stated that on local examination, the patient was having CLW over the left parietal region of the scalp measuring approximately 4 cm x 1 cm. He stated that as per record, the patient had simple injuries.
PW-6 is Ct. Manjeet. He accompanied with PW-8 in respect of arrest of the accused and recovery of iron rod/angle on 21.05.2014 and 22.05.2014 respectively. He tendered the arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively, disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW6/C and pointing out memo Ex.PW6/D. PW-7 is ASI Harender Singh. He stated that on assignment of PCR call to him, he took the injured to the hospital.
PW-8 is IO/SI Sanjeev Kumar. He submitted about the steps taken by him during investigation in the present case.
5. After conclusion of the evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused claimed himself innocent and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. All the proceedings were conducted at the police station itself. He had not beaten PW-1/Deepak Sharma with any iron angle and no such iron angle had been recovered at his instance. There was no unauthorized grill at his shop and no such incident as alleged ever had taken place. In fact, PW-1 had self inflicted the injury and falsely named him in this case because of previous SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 4 of 18 enmity. Though the accused opted to lead defence evidence, but he did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. I have heard final arguments from Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have perused the record.
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the accused alongwith his two nephews (who could not be traced and apprehended) assaulted PW-1 by hitting him with an iron angle on his head. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
8. On the contrary, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there are various material contradictions in the case of prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.
9. In the present case, PW-1 is the star witness and the injured/victim. He has stated that on 21.04.2014 at about 09:00 pm when he went to his shop, he saw a grill installed at the terrace of his shop. Accused claimed to have installed the same. According to PW-1, installation of the grill at his shop by the accused was the reason due to which the alleged altercation ensued.
10. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that firstly, neither IO nor the complainant produced any evidence including photographs of the alleged installation of grill to substantiate the version of PW-1 to this effect. Moreover, in his cross examination, PW-1 has stated SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 5 of 18 that in the morning of 21.04.2014, he had found the grill at his shop. Thus, there is contradiction in his complaint and his version before the Court on this aspect. He has further argued that the actual dispute was related to the tree situated in front of the shop of complainant and he wanted to cut the branch of the tree. The accused always prevented him from doing so, that is why PW-1 got the accused falsely implicated in the present case.
It is correct that during his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that in the morning also, the said grill was found to be there. He had even asked the accused as to who had installed the said grill and he had replied that he had installed it and had stated that the grill and the shop both belonged to him. But, it is worth observing that PW-1 remained consistent on his version that he visited his shop on the day of incident in the evening and the altercation occurred on the point of installation of grill by the accused at his shop. Further, even if it is accepted that the grill had been noticed by PW-1 in the morning of 21.04.2014 itself, then too, it cannot be expected from any person that he must have complained to the concerned authorities or police, on the same day of incident, about such encroachment/trespass allegedly committed by his neighbor shopkeeper. So far as non-production of photographs of the said installation by IO is concerned, the same may be lapse on the part of the IO, but this lapse is not the material one. Furthermore, the accused did not bring any evidence on record to show that PW-1 had unauthorizedly cut the branch of the tree which was situated in front of the shop of the complainant. Above all, as the case may be, either due to installation of grill or SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 6 of 18 cutting of branches of tree, if any altercation has occurred between PW-1 and accused, the same did not give any right to accused or any other person to assault PW-1. It is appropriate to scrutiny the testimony of PW-1 in respect of alleged assault committed by the accused.
11. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that as per call made by PW-1 at 100 number and also DD entry recorded pursuant thereto, it has been recorded that some persons known to the caller had assaulted him by knife, while the case of the prosecution is that PW-1 had been assaulted by an iron angle. Further, when the accused was known to PW-1, then why he did not mention the name of the accused at the time of making call on 100 number itself.
Ld. Addl. PP has pointed out that though PCR call form Ex.PW4/A and DD entry no.78B Ex.PW2/A are the documents of prosecution, yet it shall be pertinent to note that PW- 1 during his cross examination has denied to have made such call at 100 number that 'some unknown persons have stabbed me' and he had not stated to the police officials in the hospital that 'some unknown persons have stabbed me'.
Perusal of record reveals that in the PCR call form Ex.PW4/A and DD entry no.78B, Ex.PW2/A, it has been recorded that the caller had been assaulted by knife by some persons known to him. Firstly, the incident has allegedly occurred at 09:00 pm. Thereafter, the complainant went to his house and from there, he made a call on 100 number which was recorded vide Ex.PW4/A. The injured must have been in the trauma of having been hit on SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 7 of 18 his head and that too, by his known persons. Accordingly, at that time, he might not have conveyed about the exact description of weapon of offence from which he was assaulted, but it is pertinent to note that when his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by PW- 8/IO, he has categorically stated that he had been hit by an iron angle. The said statement was recorded at about 11:30 pm on 21.04.2014 i.e. just after one and half hour (1 ½ hour) of calling the PCR at 100 number. Moreover, in the MLC of PW-1, Ex.PW1/E also it is opined that the kind of weapon used was blunt. Thus, this argument about contradiction in the information given through PCR call and the testimony of PW-1 in respect of kind of weapon is not material one.
Further, it has been specifically stated during 100 number call that the caller had been hit by some persons known to him. It is natural that the caller/PW-1 in a situation of trauma and in a hurry to get an immediate attention could not convey the name of the persons who had assaulted him. First of all, the words 'some persons had assaulted him' fortify the version of PW-1 that the accused was accompanied with other persons while assaulting him.
Moreover, it is pertinent to note that PW-1, though knew about their relation with accused, did not know the name of nephews of accused who were accomplices in the alleged incident of assault, that was why he might have stated that some persons known to him assaulted him. During his cross-examination, he denied having said at 100 number call that some unknown persons had assaulted him. The tenor of questions on this aspect was SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 8 of 18 ambiguous. As it is not clear whether Ld. Defence Counsel, at that time, was challenging veracity of having made call at 100 number or of having informed about assault by 'known persons'.
It is pertinent to note that in the report received back in the PCR form, Ex.PW4/A, it has been recorded that the injured had informed that Ashok Kumar (accused) had assaulted him due to dispute over construction. Furthermore, when PW-8 recorded the statement of PW-1 at 11:30 pm on that day of assault itself, he mentioned the name of the accused as well as about involvement of his two nephews in the alleged assault.
12. Ld. defence counsel has argued that there is contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses about the spot of incident as some witnesses have mentioned it as 'Pratap Khand' while some have stated it to be 'Jhilmil Colony'.
It is worth observing that it is the case of PW-1 that he made a call on 100 number from his house situated at 'Pratap Khand', while his shop was situated at 'Jhilmil Colony'. Accordingly, if PW-7 has stated that at about 10:00 pm, a call was received regarding a quarrel at Pratap Khand and PW-8 also stated that he proceeded to the place of incident, Pratap Khand, Jhilmil, then no contradiction can be deduced from the abovesaisd versions as the call had been made from the house of PW-1 situated at Pratap Khand. Moreover, from the record, it can be inferred that area of 'Pratap Khand' is part of area of 'Jhilmil Colony'. Moreover, the accused should have got clarification on this aspect from PW-8 during his cross-examination.
SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 9 of 18
13. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that PW-1 in his testimony has claimed that he had started bleeding and his shirt also became blood stained. But the IO did not seize the blood stained shirt and the fact that injured was found bleeding, had not been recorded in his MLC, Ex.PW1/E. It is worth observing that in the MLC of PW-1, it has been observed that PW-1 was having CLW (clean lacerated wound) over the left parietal region of the scalp measuring approximately 4 cm x 1 cm. PW-1 has stated that he had suffered about seven stitches in his head. He had remained in the hospital for about five hours. Hence, it can be safely assumed that he must have bled after the alleged assault. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 on this aspect is trustworthy.
Further, no clarification was sought by accused from PW-8/IO about non-seizure of the blood stained shirt of PW-1. Even if, it is considered as a lapse on part of the investigating officer, the same does not create any doubt on the testimony of PW-1. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2000 SC 718, has held that:
Dealing with a case of negligence on the part of the investigating officer, this Court in Karnel Singh v. State of MP, 1995(5) SCC 518 observed that in a case of defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to be falling in the hands of erring investigating officer. Similarly, in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1998(2) RCR(Crl.) SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 10 of 18 403 : 1998(4) SCC 517 para 13 this Court observed :-
"....In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law- enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
9. Further in Paras Yadav and others v. State of Bihar, 1999(1) RCR(Crl.) 628 : 1999(2) SCC 126 this Court held :-
"...It may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not....."
14. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that PW-1 was heavily drunk at the time of alleged incident, hence, he could not have noticed as to who had actually committed assault upon him.
PW-1, during his cross examination, has candidly stated that at the time of incident, he had consumed liquor. He was not heavily drunk at that time. Further, in the MLC of PW-1, Ex.PW1/E, it has been recorded that the patient had consumed liquor. However, it has also been observed that patient was conscious and oriented. He had been declared fit for statement. Moreover, PW-8/IO has also stated that when he recorded the statement of PW-1, he was conscious. He has further stated that the complainant was not under intoxication when he met him at SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 11 of 18 the hospital. In these circumstances, the arguments of Ld. Defence counsel on this aspect do not inspire confidence.
15.Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that PW-1 has falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
It is pertinent to note that during cross examination of PW-1, suggestions were put by the accused to him that 'PW-1 had beaten Lavi (son of the accused) at the spot and he (Lavi) had become unconscious. Further, the accused himself had made a call on 100 number and thereafter had taken his son Lavi to the hospital. PW-1 had falsely prepared this false story to implicate the accused as he had beaten Lavi.' From the abovesaid suggestions put to PW-1, it can be safely inferred that accused does not dispute the presence of PW-1 at the spot of incident on the impugned date and time. Though he had alleged that instead of assault by accused upon PW-1, it was PW-1 who had assaulted the son of accused. Surprisingly when the son of accused had been got medically examined at the hospital after the alleged assault by PW-1, the accused did not examine his son or produce any medical document to prove his point.
Moreover, during cross-examination of PW-1, accused put suggestions to him that he was asked by the doctors to go home soon after his treatment in the hospital and that he had only sustained minor injuries. These suggestions lead to infer that the accused did not dispute the fact of PW-1 having received injuries and his treatment in the hospital. Accordingly, non-joining of neighboring shopkeepers by the IO/PW-8 does not create any SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 12 of 18 suspicion against the testimony of PW-1. Above all, it is beyond comprehension that why PW-1 would absolve the actual assailant and falsely implicate the accused in the present case. In respect of efficacy of testimony of an injured witness, the Apex Court in Mohar v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 SC 3279, has held that:
11. The testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the place of occurrence and had seen the occurrence by himself. Convincing evidence would require to discredit an injured witness.
Similarly, every discrepancy in the statement of witness cannot be treated as fatal. The discrepancy which does not affect the prosecution case materially cannot create any infirmity.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, has held that:
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
16. Ld. Defence counsel has raised the doubt that why PW-1 could not tell the names of nephews of accused who had allegedly accompanied the accused in assaulting him.
SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 13 of 18 PW-1 had mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW1/A itself that accused was accompanied with his two nephews at the time of alleged assault, though he did not know their names, but he knew them by face. It was the duty of investigating agency to trace and apprehend the said nephews of the accused. Just because the investigating agency could not do so, the testimony of PW-1 does not become unreliable. Moreover, when his testimony on material aspect is convincing and trustworthy, his inability to name the nephews of accused does not make it unreliable.
17. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that in fact, the impugned injury was self inflicted by PW-1.
Firstly, no such suggestion was given by the accused to PW-1 as well as to the doctor/PW-5 who tendered the MLC of PW-1. The accused had a chance to get expert opinion on this aspect by putting question to PW-5, but he did not avail this opportunity. Thus, the accused cannot be allowed to advance such argument at this stage.
18. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the prosecution witnesses have made contradictory version in respect of description of weapon of offence as some have mentioned it an 'iron rod' and other have stated it an 'iron angle'.
It is pertinent to note that the weapon of offence i.e. iron angle Ex.P-1, has been produced before the Court during examination of PW-1, PW-6 and PW-8 and all the material witnesses have identified the same. Further, while noting down the SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 14 of 18 description, even during the examination of PW-8, it has been stated to be an iron rod. No contradiction on this aspect could be brought on record by the accused during cross-examination of the abovesaid witnesses.
19. The above said observations prove that the accused alongwith other two persons assaulted the complainant/ PW-1 on his head with an iron angle. Due to this assault, he received CLW over the left parietal region of the scalp measuring approximately 4 cm x 1 cm.
20. Now, I consider the applicability of Section 34 of IPC in present case. Regarding Section 34 of IPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Hari Ram v. State of U.P., 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 805, that:
12. [T]he provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Ch. Pulla Reddy and Ors.
v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993(3) RCR(Crl.) 319 (SC) : (AIR 1993 SC 1899), Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.
In present case, considering the testimony of PW-1 about the acts of accused and his nephews at the time of committing assault upon PW-1, unambiguous inference can be drawn that they caused injuries to him in furtherance of their SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 15 of 18 common intention. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused, in furtherance of common intention with co-accused persons, had caused injuries to PW-1.
21. Lastly, the Court is to consider culpability of accused for offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. At the most, the accused could be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. At this stage, the Court is guided by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sheila Devi & Ors.vs. State, in Crl. Rev.P. 217/2015 decided on 23.09.2015, wherein the Court has held that:
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 SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 16 of 18 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.
5. In the instant case, both the parties were acquainted with each other and they lived as neighbours in the same vicinity. There was no history of previous animosity or hostility between them. On 25.07.2012, a sudden quarrel took place between them on a trivial issue of raising alleged unauthorized toilet which was objected to by the complainant. Again on 26.07.2012 quarrel took place between them on the said issue. In the said quarrel, the complainant sustained injuries on her forehead. MLC (Annexure-C) reveals that one lacerated wound 3'1 c.m. was found on the forehead of the victim. Injuries were 'simple'in nature caused by blunt object. The victim did not need hospitalization and was discharged on the same day after prescribing certain medicines. Apparently, the injuries sustained by the victim were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The petitioners were not armed with any deadly weapons. Only a single blow was allegedly sustained by the victim when a brick was thrown at her by one of the petitioners in the quarrel that had taken place all of a sudden without premeditation. No serious injuries were caused on the vital organ of the victim. Under these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that injuries were inflicted with the avowed object or intention to cause death or bodily injury capable of causing death. Merely because a superficial injury was found on the forehead of the victim, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to commit culpable homicide. The material before the learned Trial Court was deficient to attract Section 308 IPC. It SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 17 of 18 was a simple case of scuffle/quarrel between the parties where injuries were inflicted voluntarily and for that the assailants can be proceeded for causing hurt under Section 323 IPC.
The facts and circumstances in the present case are almost similar as that of the above said precedent. The prosecution has failed to prove that whether the accused had the intention to cause death or knew in the circumstances that his act was going to cause death. Thus, the accused is held liable for causing hurt to PW-1. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Announced in open Court (Naveen Gupta) on 07th day of February 2020. Addl. Sessions Judge-05 Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.219/18, FIR No.278/14 State Vs. Ashok Kumar @ Shokki PS Vivek Vihar Page 18 of 18