Delhi District Court
State vs Aman @ Jatin And Anr on 12 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-003902-2024
FIR No. : 01/2024
SC No. : 318/2024
Police Station : Aman Vihar
Under Section : 307/34 IPC
State Versus : 1) Aman @ Jatin
S/o Dharambir Sharma
R/o H.No. A-13, Gali No.2,
Part-3, Karan Vihar, Delhi
2) Amit
S/o Keshaw Ram
R/o H.No. B-225, Gali No.3,
Karan Vihar, Delhi
Accused
Date of committal to 30.04.2024
this court
Date of final 08.12.2025
arguments
Date of Judgment 12.12.2025
Appearance:
Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
Sh. Narender Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused Amit.
Sh. Adarsh Mishra, Ld. Counsel for accused Aman @ Jatin.
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case of prosecution are that ASI Mukesh No. 724/OD gave information by phone from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Rohini that "Patient Ravi, son of Nisha Sulekh Chand, aged 27 years, R/o B-197, Karan Vihar, Mangal Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 1 / 27 Date: 2025.12.15 13:24:54 +0530 Bazar Road, after falling from stairs got injured, he was admitted by his brother (mobile no. xxxxx154) examined vide MLC No. 02/24 and is admitted in hospital; concerned Investigating Officer be sent." Aforesaid information of ASI Mukesh was recorded at 00:55:58 on 01.01.2024 in GD No. 0003A at PS Aman Vihar, District Rohini and its copy was given to SI Parmod Kumar. SI Parmod Kumar reached Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, he found injured Ravi, son of Sulekh Chand, admitted there vide MLC No. 02/24 and under treatment. MLC No. 02/24 records patient Ravi, son of Sulekh Chand, age 27 years, male, brought by brother (xxxxx154) and examined at 1.10 AM on 01.01.2024 by examining doctor, who noted in the MLC that patient came in Casualty with alleged history of physical assault; was conscious, oriented and had stab injury present over the infraumbilical region of size 5x4x4 cms. The patient Ravi was referred by Dr. Neha, JR, Casualty to surgery department for further management. MLC of injured also records that patient was brought by relatives to ER, SGM Hospital with alleged history of physical assault with sharp object at 12.45 AM on 01.01.2024 at Karan Vihar.
2. Following statement was given by injured Ravi while admitted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital to SI Parmod Kumar. That he (injured Ravi) resided at B-197, Karan Vihar, Part-3, Mangal Bazar Road, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi-110086 with family and was engaged in work of metal supply. About two years ago, a quarrel had taken place with Jatin, residing in the street opposite to his house. Later thereto at about 12.30 AM, someone knocked on the door of his house, upon which he and his brother came out Nisha Sahay and then suddenly accused Jatin took out a knife and stabbed him Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 2 / 27 Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:25:02 +0530 in the abdomen. Jatin ran away. His brother took him to hospital where he was under treatment, and he demanded legal action against Jatin. Initially investigating agency recorded FIR No. 0001/2024 under Section 324 of IPC.
3. Investigating Officer enquired about the condition of injured from the treating doctor, who informed the Investigating Officer about surgery of injured and condition of injured being critical. Investigating Officer with staff reached the place of incident and checked the CCTV footage and found involvement of other boys as well. Investigating Officer informed his senior officers and discussed about the case, upon which the offence was converted to Section 307 read with 34 of IPC. MLC was deposited in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for obtaining result. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that with complainant, his brother Bablu and friend Kuldeep were also present at the place of incident. Investigating Officer called Bablu and Kuldeep to Police Station and recorded their statements during the course of Investigation. Later, offence under Section 506 of IPC was added. Accused Aman @ Jatin was apprehended from his home. Accused Aman @ Jatin and accused Amit were arrested on 01.01.2024.
4. On 12.01.2024 complainant Ravi came to Police Station and gave his supplementary statement stating that in the intervening night of 31.12.2023 and 01.01.2024 at around 12 night, he alongwith his brother Bablu and friend Kuldeep was sitting at their godown B-197, Karan Vihar, Part-3, Mangal Bazar Road, where they were having New Year eve party in their godown and placed order for food. When person from Zomato Nisha Sahay after delivery of food to them went out, they heard uproar, upon Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 3 / 27 Date: 2025.12.15 13:25:10 +0530 which injured Ravi with his brother Bablu and friend Kuldeep went out and saw 5-6 boys were beating person from Zomato, upon which they objected to the same. Accused Jatin (who resided in the neighbourhood) leaving Zomato person came towards him, followed by five boys and surrounded him, Bablu and Kuldeep and the said Jatin and his five companion boys started grappling with him, Bablu and Kuldeep. Two years ago, he had a quarrel with the aforesaid neighbour accused Jatin. Accused Jatin took out a knife and other four boys namely Amit, Chintu, Kalu Negi and Amar said, "isko aaj jaan se hi maar de jhanjhat hi khatm ho jayega, jo hame roz roz yahan wahan daaru peene se tokta hai" (kill him today, once and for all and the trouble of him stopping us from drinking everyday will be over). Accused Jatin stabbed him in the abdomen. Having seen the accused Jatin assaulting Ravi Bansal in the abdomen with a knife, another boy Hacker who had come with accused Jatin started giving leg and fist blows to Jatin, upon which Jatin and his companion boys ran away from there. Aforesaid Hacker, Bablu and Kuldeep took him to hospital where he was treated, when he gave his statement to the police, due to immense pain that day, he was unable to tell complete details of the incident. On 01.01.2024 in the morning at 5.30 AM, he was operated upon in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and was discharged from the hospital on 07.01.2024. CCTV footage was given by him to the officers of Investigating agency. Accused Aman @ Jatin and Amit produced in the Court and were sent to Judicial Custody. In the course of Investigation, accused Amit was enlarged on bail. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
CHARGE Nisha
Sahay
5. Formal charge was framed against both accused Saxena
Digitally signed by
Nisha Sahay Saxena
SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 4 / 27 Date: 2025.12.15
13:25:17 +0530
persons for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges specifically alleged that the accused persons, acting in furtherance of their common intention, attempted to commit the murder of complainant Ravi by causing stab injuries. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. During trial, prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all.
S.No Witness Description of testimony
1. PW 1 Ravi Bansal. Injured cum complainant.
2. PW 2 ASI Manoj Duty Officer.
Kumar.
3. PW 3 Kuldeep Eye Witness
4. PW 4 Bablu Eye Witness
5. PW 5 Dr. Munish Opined that the injuries
Wadhawan mentioned in MLC of injured are
possible with the weapon
examined.
6. PW 6 Raghunandan Delivery boy with Zomato.
Kishore
7. PW 7 Ct. Sukhbir Carrier of exhibits to FSL.
8. PW 8 Dr. Neha. Proved MLC of injured.
9. PW 9 HC Amit. Joined investigation with IO.
10. PW 10 Inspector Investigating Officer.
Parmod Kumar.
11. PW 11 Dheeraj Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology)
Bhardwaj proved FSL Report.
Documents relied upon by the prosecution :
S.No. Nature of document Exhibit 1. Statement of complainant. Ex. PW 1/A. 2. Certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act qua Ex. PW 1/B. Nisha Sahay CCTV footage. Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 5 / 27 Date: 2025.12.15 13:25:26 +0530 3. Seizure memo of pendrive. Ex. PW 1/C. 4. Site Plan. Ex. PW 1/D 5. FIR. Ex. PW 2/A. 6. Endorsement on rukka. Ex. PW 2/B.
7. Certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act. Ex. PW 2/C.
8. DD No. 3 A. Ex. PW 2/D.
9. Opinion and sketch of knife. Ex. PW 5/A.
10. Receipt qua deposit of samples with FSL. Ex. PW 7/A.
11. Copy of RC. Ex. PW 7/B.
12. MLC of injured. Ex. PW 8/A.
13. Arrest memo of accused Aman @ Jatin Ex. PW 9/A.
14. Disclosure statement of accused Aman @ Ex. PW 9/B. Jatin
15. Personal Search Memo of accused Aman Ex. PW 9/C. @ Jatin.
16. Seizure Memo of knife. Ex. PW 9/D.
17. Arrest memo of accused Amit. Ex. PW 9/E.
18. Disclosure Statement of accused Amit. Ex. PW 9/F.
19. Personal Search Memo of accused Amit. Ex. PW 9/G.
20. Rukka. Ex. PW 10/A.
21. Sketch of knife. Ex. PW 10/B.
22. Seizure memo of blood sample of victim. Ex. PW 10/C.
23. Application moved by IO for obtaining Ex. PW 10/D. opinion qua weapon of offence.
24. Copy of complaint made at PS Aman Mark A. Vihar
25. Copy of another complaint made at PS Mark B. Aman Vihar
26. Statement of Kuldeep u/s 161 CrPC Mark PW 3/A
27. Statement of Bablu u/s 161 CrPC Mark PW 4/A
28. Pen Drive containing CCTV footage. Ex. P-1.
29. Knife. Ex. P-1.
Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 6 / 27 Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:25:34 +0530
7. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons in separate statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the arraigned accused persons pleaded innocence and false implications. Both accused refused to enter upon their defence and/or to lead the defence evidence.
8. I have heard the submissions of Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State; Sh. Narender Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused Amit; Sh. Adarsh Mishra, Ld. Counsel for accused Aman @ Jatin; accused persons and have perused the record including the charge sheet, documents, evidence and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forth.
ANALYSIS & REASONING
9. The injured Ravi Bansal was allegedly attempted to be murdered by stabbing on his abdomen by the accused Aman @ Jatin sharing common intention with accused accused Amit and other associates. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to reproduce section 307 IPC and the legal position on the same.
"Sec. 307. Attempt to murder : 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 murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned."
10. Intention, knowledge and motive are the most important aspects under criminal law in determination of the consequences of various acts. Evidently, from the bare reading of Section 307 Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 7 / 27 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:25:42 +0530 IPC, these aspects are vital in the instant case too. As such, a brief legal position concerning these words and how these should be read and interpreted is given herein below:-
"Intention - "Criminal intention" simply means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal law without just cause or excuse. The intention of the accused to produce a particular consequence shows his intention to do that act. An act is intentional if it exists in idea before it exists in fact, the idea realizing itself in the fact because of the desire by which it is accompanied. The word 'intent' does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor is it used as a synonym for 'motive'. Where the Legislature makes an offence dependent on proof of intention, the court must have proof of facts sufficient to justify it in coming to the conclusion that the intention existed. No doubt one has usually to infer intention from conduct, and one matter that has to be taken into account is the probable effect of the conduct. But that is never conclusive. As a general rule, every sane man is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and this presumption of law will prevail unless from a consideration of all the evidence the court entertains a reasonable doubt whether such intention existed. This presumption, however, is not conclusive nor alone sufficient to justify a conviction and should be supplemented by other testimony. An accused must be judged to have the intention that is indicated by his proved acts. The burden of proving guilty intention lies upon the prosecution where the intent is expressly stated as part of the definition of the crime. Criminal intent as a psychological fact has to be proved even in regard to offences under the Special Acts unless it is specifically ruled out or ruled out by necessary implication.
Knowledge - Where knowledge of a fact is an essential ingredient of an offence it must be distinctly proved. There are certain offences in the Penal Code where the accused who commits those offences is punished irrespective of the fact whether he had Nisha knowledge or not. Where a particular act is forbidden Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 8 / 27 Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:25:49 +0530 the question of knowledge becomes immaterial.
Motive - Motive is not to be confused with intention. If a man knows that a certain consequence will follow from his act, it must be presumed in law that he intended that consequence to take place although he may have had some quite different ulterior motive for performing the act. The motive for an act is not a sufficient test to determine its criminal character. By motive is meant anything that can contribute to give birth or even to prevent, any kind of action. Motive may serve as a clue to the intention; but although the motive be pure, the act done under it may be criminal. Purity of motive does not purge an act of its criminal character. An act which is unlawful cannot, in law, be excused on the ground that it was committed from a good motive.
Motive, though not a sine qua non for bringing the offence home to the accused, is relevant and important on the question of intention.
Though the prosecution is not bound to prove motive for the crime, absence of any motive is a factor which may be considered in determining the guilt of the accused. Thus, if there is really no motive and the crime is completely motiveless then that circumstance can be taken into consideration along with the evidence of prior insanity. But if the actual evidence as to the commission of the crime is believed, then no question of motive remains to be established. It is not the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove motive with which a certain offence has been committed. It is sufficient if the prosecution proves by clear and reliable evidence that certain persons committed the offence, whatever the motives may be which induced them to commit that offence. For, motive is a fact very often within the special knowledge of the person doing the act and thus it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain the motive in a given case but that does not mean that the offence was not committed.The question of motive is not material where there is direct evidence of the acts of the accused and the acts themselves are sufficient to disclose the intention of Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 9 / 27 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:25:55 +0530 the actor. But in cases of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive is a factor in favour of the accused.
11. The case of prosecution primarily hinges upon the testimony of PW 1 complainant Ravi Bansal, PW 3 Sh. Kuldeep and PW 4 Bablu. In his testimony before the court, PW 1 Ravi Bansal, deposed that on 31.12.2023, he alongwith his brother Bablu and friend Kuldeep were celebrating new year eve party at his godown and they had placed an order for food from Zomato. The delivery man of the Zomato delivered food to them and left. They heard a noise and on coming out, they saw 5-6 persons were beating Zomato wala (delivery man of Zomato), and when the complainant objected, accused Jatin came towards him. Other persons also followed him and they all surrounded them. He further deposed that accused Amit was also with accused Jatin. Thereafter, accused Jatin took out a knife and stabbed him in his abdomen. He named the other persons as Chintu, Amar, Amit, Kalu Negi. After stabbing him, accused Jatin and his above named associates ran away. He was taken to hospital by his brother and Kuldeep. He further deposed that the CCTV footage of the occurrence, in a pendrive, was also handed over by him to the police as the CCTV cameras were installed in his premises, which was seized by the police. He correctly identified both the accused persons present in the court. He further deposed that when he was discharged from the hospital, they were threatened by mother of accused Jatin that she would falsely implicate them in a rape case and they had also lodged a complaint to this effect with PS Aman Vihar. The witness identified three files as the footage of his CCTV camera, of the day of incident.
Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 10 / 27 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:26:02 +0530
12. The CCTV footage played, showed that at 23:45 PM, the Zomato man went inside the godown of the complainant and at 23:49 PM, the delivery man was about to leave on his scooty and accused Jatin appeared there and slapped him. Then 5 more persons came there and they also grappled with Zomato man and at 23:50 PM, when the Zomato wala drove his scooty, the accused Amit kicked him. Thereafter, all the above persons grappled with complainant and his brother and friend, who came out from the godown. At 23:52:27 PM, accused Jatin stabbed the complainant/witness. The witness identified the CCTV footage played and accused Jatin stabbing him. The pendrive and CCTV footage is Ex.P1-colly.
13. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Aman @ Jatin, PW 1 deposed that he knew accused Jatin since his childhood, as he is his neighbour. He had also a quarrel with accused Jatin about two years prior to the present incident. When the door was knocked, he alongwith two other persons namely Kuldeep and Bablu came out of the door and saw that a quarrel was going on. They came out at about 11:50/52 PM. He admitted it to be correct that he told the police in his statement Ex.PW1/A that they came out at 12:30 in the night. He further admitted it to be correct that that on that day they were celebrating the eve of new year and were consuming whiskey. He further admitted it to be correct that he had stated to the police that when he and his brother came out of the room, Jatin all of a sudden took out a knife and stabbed in his abdomen and thereafter, Jatin ran away from the spot. The mobile No. xxxxxx154 belonged to his brother Bunty Bansal. On being put a Nisha question whether his brother Bunty Bansal informed the police Sahay Saxena Digitally signed SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 11 / 27 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:26:09 +0530 from his mobile phone that he (complainant) had sustained injury due to fall from staircase. He stated that he had no knowledge. He was taken to the hospital by one boy namely Hacker, but he did not remember at what time he reached the hospital. His first statement was recorded by the police in the hospital at around 12:30/1:00 AM on the day of incident itself, while his second statement was recorded in the Police Station perhaps on 10.01.2024. He did not remember who else were present with him when his first statement was recorded in the hospital as he was in pain and was under intoxication ( nasha mein tha). The police did not visit the spot in his presence. He denied the suggestion that due to previous enmity, he falsely implicated the accused Aman @ Jatin in this case. He denied the suggestion that he sustained injury due to fall from the staircase, but due to previous enmity, he named the accused Aman @ Jatin.
14. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Amit, PW 1 Ravi Bansal deposed that accused Amit is known to him since his childhood and their families have cordial relations. He admitted it to be correct that Amit had not caused any injury to him with knife nor he slapped him.
15. PW 3 Kudeep deposed that in the intervening night of 31.12.2023 and 01.01.2024, between 12:00 to 12:30 a.m., quarrel had taken place in front of the house of Ravi Bansal. At that time, he was in the house of Ravi Bansal. A quarrel had taken place between Ravi and other persons but he did not know the other persons who were quarreling with Ravi. He had seen that blood was oozing out from the stomach of Ravi and the said other Nisha persons were shouting "maaro, maaro". After quarrel, he had left Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 12 / 27 Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:26:15 +0530 Ravi at the spot and went to his house on his motorcycle. He had not taken injured Ravi to the hospital.
16. On being cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor, PW 3 deposed that he did not know accused persons Jatin and Amit. Police had inquired from him regarding the present case after 1 or 2 days of the incident. He had reached at the house of Ravi Bansal at about 11:30 p.m. and left his house after the quarrel. On being shown the accused persons namely Aman @ Jatin and Amit, the said witness stated that he did not know them. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons who had inflicted injuries to Ravi Bansal. He denied the suggestion that he was the eye witness of the entire incident and had seen the accused persons at the spot quarreling and stabbing Ravi Bansal.
17. PW 4 Bablu (cousin of injured Ravi Bansal) deposed that at the time of quarrel, he was present at the house of Ravi Bansal. In the intervening night of 31.12.2023 and 01.01.2024, between 12:00 to 12:30 a.m., he had heard quarrel outside the house of Ravi Bansal and when they came outside, some persons started quarreling with Ravi and abusing him. In the said quarrel, the persons who were quarreling with Ravi stabbed him in his stomach, but he did not know the persons who were quarreling with Ravi and stabbed him. He had seen that blood was oozing out from the stomach of Ravi. The said other persons were shouting "maaro, maaro". After quarrel, some friends had taken Ravi to the hospital, but he did not remember their names. He did not know the offenders who had inflicted injuries to Ravi Bansal and he could not identify them. Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 13 / 27 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:26:23 +0530
18. On being cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor, PW 4 deposed that he did not know accused persons Jatin and Amit. He had reached at the house of Ravi Bansal at about 11:00 p.m. or 11:30 p.m. and left his house after the quarrel. He did not take the injured, who is his cousin brother, to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused persons who had caused injuries to Ravi Bansal. On being shown the accused persons, this witness also stated that he did not know them.
19. After scrutiny of the testimony of the material witnesses, the case of the prosecution hinges primarily on the testimony of injured/victim/complainant PW1 Ravi Bansal; the medical evidence and the electronic record evidence in the form of CCTV footage; more so when the examined material witnesses PW3 Kuldeep and PW4 Bablu did not testify against the arraigned accused to be the offenders and did not support the prosecution case.
20. To appreciate the evidence on record, it would be apt to take guidance from the pronouncement of the higher Courts. The following judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case have been enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajan v. The State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1081 as under:-
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 14 / 27 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:26:33 +0530 the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisonning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 15 / 27 Date: 2025.12.15 13:26:40 +0530 VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 16 / 27 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:26:47 +0530 XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)"
21. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
"(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) 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.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) 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.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 17 / 27 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:26:56 +0530 passage of time should be discarded."
22. Also was held therein that 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 yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put 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. (See: Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra : (2023) 13 SCC 365).
23. PW6 Raghunandan Kishore is the delivery boy with Zomato and after receipt of order on 31.12.2022 from Bablu Garg, he reached the place of incident after collecting the order and delivered it to said Bablu where he was offered food and drink but he took only curd. In the street, he met 5-6 boys, amongst which two were drunken and they started quarreling Nisha with him as to why he had delivered food to their enemies. He Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 18 / 27 Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:27:04 +0530 raised alarm. Bablu and his Associates came there. Quarrel had taken there between both the parties. He ran away on his scooty no. DL8GD-6843. He could not identify those persons who told him that why he had delivered food to their enemies.
24. PW8 Dr. Neha JR Casualty, SGM Hospital stated that on 01.01.2024 at about 1.10 AM, she had examined injured Ravi Bansal. He was brought to Casualty by his brother with alleged history of physical assault. PW8 deposed that upon medical examination of patient PW1 Ravi, she found the injured PW1 having stab injury 5x4x4 cms over the infraumbilical region. PW8 referred injured PW1 Ravi to surgery department for further management and prepared MLC Ex. PW8/A.
25. PW5 Dr. Munish Wadhawan testified that on 18.03.2024 he received the application from SI Parmod Kumar for seeking subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence with sealed parcel containing the weapon of offence. After preparation of sketch of weapon, i.e. knife and going through injuries mentioned in MLC and after examining the said knife; PW5 opined that injury mentioned in the MLC was possible with the weapon examined or sharp weapon. PW5 proved his detailed opinion and sketch of knife as Ex. PW5/A.
26. PW9 HC Amit accompanied IO PW10 Inspector (then SI) Parmod, who on receipt of copy of DD No. 3A Ex. PW2/D on 01.01.2024 reached Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. PW10 collected MLC of injured Ravi PW1 from hospital and recorded statement Ex. PW1/A of PW1. PW10 prepared rukka Ex. PW10/A and Digitally gave it to PW9 for getting the FIR registered. PW9 went to the signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay Sahay Saxena SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 19 / 27 Saxena Date:
2025.12.15 13:27:11 +0530 Police Station and got the FIR registered and brought back copy of FIR, original rukka and handed over them to PW10. PW10 and PW9 went to the scene of crime. CCTV footage of the scene of crime was checked from nearby camera and were able to trace footage of CCTV. PW10 recorded statements of Kuldeep and Bablu. After visit to hospital, PW10 and PW9 collected medical record of injured. Offence under Section 307 IPC was added by PW10 after discussing the matter with senior officers. On search for the accused; accused Aman @ Jatin was arrested vide memo Ex. PW9/A. accused Aman @ Jatin made disclosure statement Ex. PW9/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/C. Accused Aman @ Jatin got effected recovery of knife Ex. P1 from his house from underneath the mattress of bed at first floor. Sketch Ex. PW10/B of knife was prepared by PW10. Knife Ex. P1 was seized vide memo Ex. PW9/D. Accused Amit was arrested from his house on 01.01.2024 vide memo Ex. PW9/E. Personal search of accused Amit was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/G. Disclosure statement Ex. PW9/F of accused Amit was recorded. PW10 prepared site plan Ex. PW1/D at the instance of injured PW1 Ravi Bansal on 12.01.2024. PW10 recorded supplementary statement of injured PW1 Ravi Bansal on 12.01.2024 and also seized the pen drive containing video clip of the occurrence vide memo Ex. PW1/C. Blood sample of victim/injured PW1 was obtained by PW10 through hospital and seized vide memo Ex. PW10/C. PW10 had submitted the MLC of injured for subsequent opinion of the doctor. Sealed blood sample was deposited in the malkhana.
PW10 moved application Ex. PW10/D for obtaining opinion qua weapon of offence. Sealed exhibits were sent to FSL. PW10 Nisha denied the suggestion in cross-examination for planting the knife Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 20 / 27 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:27:17 +0530 upon accused Jatin to falsely implicate him in this case. PW10 also denied the suggestion of having falsely implicated the accused persons at the instance of complainant as there was grudge prior to the incident in question.
27. PW11 Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL, Rohini, proved his report Ex. PW11/A, which he forwarded vide letter Ex. PW11/B to SHO PS Aman Vihar. In report Ex. PW11/A; PW11 opined that blood could not be detected on the knife Ex. P1. As from recovered knife, blood could not be detected; the forensic examination was of no help to the prosecution. How could the blood be detected from the knife alleged to be recovered from under the mattress of a bed? Hence no adverse inference can be made that blood of the injured was not detected on the weapon of offence.
28. True that in statement Ex. PW1/A injured/victim/ complainant PW1 Ravi Bansal did not detail the entire sequence of events as transpired. Statement Ex. PW1/A was given by PW1 injured/victim/complainant around two hours of the incident after having suffered stab injury of size 5x4x4 cms over the infraumbilical region on New Year eve of 2024 in the night and/or which surgery was performed the next morning at 5.30 AM approximately. Having suffered such a grievous injury on vital body part region; it is not to be lost sight of the fact that as a consequence of such injury, injured PW1 must have been suffering immense pain under which he had given statement Ex. PW1/A narrating basic fact of assault by knife by accused Jatin on his stomach, not describing entire incident in vivid detail. In Nisha his statement dated 12.01.2024 made to the Investigating Officer, Sahay Saxena Digitally signed SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 21 / 27 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:27:24 +0530 PW1 has clarified the reason for not giving vivid details in formal statement Ex. PW1/A as immense pain prevented him from giving such details. The narration of sequence of events by injured/victim/complainant PW1 Ravi Bansal is lent corroboration by the CCTV footage in pen drive Ex. P1 (colly.), which brings to fore the following facts (1) arraigned accused Aman @ Jatin and Amit to be amongst the boys who had come outside the home of injured/victim/complainant PW1 Ravi on fateful night and accused Aman @ Jatin having beaten PW6 delivery boy of Zomato; (2) accused Aman @ Jatin and Amit having surrounded injured/victim/complainant PW1 and his fellow companions with the active assistance of three other accomplices (not arrested) namely Chintu, Kalu Negi and Amar; (3) arraigned accused Aman @ Jatin and Amit having grappled with injured/victim/complainant PW1 Ravi Bansal; and (4) accused Aman @ Jatin having assaulted injured / victim / complainant PW1 Ravi Bansal. On appreciation of evidence of injured/victim/ complainant PW1 Ravi Bansal; in the backdrop of the CCTV footage in pen drive Ex. P1 (colly.) and the medical evidence on record in form of MLC of PW1 Ex. PW8/A, the evidence of injured / victim / complainant PW1 Ravi Bansal, when read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Of course the defence has brought into light the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointing them out in the evidence; but considering the condition of injured/victim/complainant PW1 having suffered serious and grievous abdominal stab injury; it stands well explained.
29. It is to be kept in mind, that no injured would let the Nisha Sahay real culprit escape Scot-free, to falsely implicate some other Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 22 / 27 Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:27:30 +0530 person, just because he belongs to another community. It is also human nature that if a person is given a life threatening injury with a knife on his abdomen, as in the instant case, the injured would not let the real culprit and the assaulter go Scot-free. In case Abdul Sayed V. State of MP, (2010) 10 SCC 259, to explain the reliability of injured witnesses, it was held that :
"Where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant (s) in order to falsely implicate someone".
30. Only after 12 days, could injured/victim/ complainant get composed for narration of entire sequence of events in his supplementary statement given to IO/PW10. The facts narrated by him, find full corroboration in material particulars from the footage of CCTV in pen drive Ex. P1 (colly.). On evaluation of the pointed deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities in evidence pointed out by the Defence Counsel from material on record including testimonies of resiled witnesses PW3 Kuldeep and PW4 Bablu. The evidence of PW 1 Ravi Bansal is neither shaken nor unworthy of belief but appears to be straight forward, cogent, trustworthy and reliable. Injured/victim/complainant PW1 could not have anticipated the occurrence, even in his dreams could not have been imagined to have received stab injury in abdomen in the course of celebration of New Year eve at his own place of abode. PW3 Kuldeep claimed to be friend of PW1 Ravi Bansal but despite having seen blood coming out from the abdomen of PW1; as per own version of PW3; he (PW3) did not take PW1 to hospital. PW3 was also celebrating New Year eve at the place of Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 23 / 27 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:27:36 +0530 PW1. How can one expect such a friend to come with truthful version in the Court of law for deposing about stab injury received by injured PW1. Similarly, as per own version of PW4 Bablu, he did not take injured Ravi to hospital after having seen blood coming out from the abdomen of injured PW1 Ravi after receipt of stab injury. So, neither PW3 Kuldeep was a friend in need of PW1 nor the cousin brother PW4 Bablu, as per own version, had come to aid of injured PW1 for getting him medical assistance at the earliest. I accordingly discard part of the testimony of PW3 Kuldeep and PW4 Bablu with respect to their non-identification of the arraigned accused persons as offenders. There may be number of reasons for PW3 Kuldeep and PW4 Bablu for resiling in Court including of threat; coercion; fear; apprehension of life, limb and property from offenders or their near and dear ones.
31. In the conspectus of the facts and findings recorded, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 34 IPC and the legal position on the same.
"Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
32. While elaborating and explaining the scope and ambit of Section 34 IPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State Of Maharashtra And Anr. AIR 2004 SC 1677, as under:
"Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of Nisha joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 24 / 27 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:27:43 +0530 Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR (1977) SC 109, the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this Section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision.
33. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao and Anr. Vs. State of A.P. [79] AIR 2004 SC 132, as under:
"Section-34 really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a common thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 25 / 27 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:27:50 +0530 individually. It is a well recognized canon of criminal jurisprudence that the Courts cannot distinguish between co-conspirators, nor can they inquire, even if it were possible as to the part taken by each in the crime. Where parties go with a common purpose to execute a common object each and every person becomes responsible for the act of each and every other in execution and furtherance of their common purpose; as the purpose is common, so must be the responsibility. All are guilty of the principal offence, not of abetment only. In combination of this kind a mortal stroke, though given by one of the party, is deemed in the eye of law to have been given by every individual present and abetting. But a party not cognizant of the intention of his companion to commit murder is not liable, though he has joined his companion to do an unlawful act."
34. It is clear that Section 34 IPC is not a penal section in itself. It defines the common intention, when more than one person commits a crime, who share the intention qua the offence committed. In such cases this section is applied along with the substantive offence. The offence in the present case was committed with common intention as per the allegations, which manifest in the acts attributed to the accused persons, therefore, Section 34 IPC was applied accordingly.
35. Relying upon the law laid in cases (1) Rajan v. The State of Haryana (Supra) and Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra (Supra) ; in view of foregoing discussions, I have reached considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove following facts. Firstly, accused Aman @ Jatin and Amit with their accomplices (not arrested) shared common intention on the fateful night. Secondly, accused Aman @ Jatin Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 26 / 27 Saxena Date: 2025.12.15 13:27:58 +0530 and Amit, sharing common intention, had grappled with injured/victim/complainant PW1 and his companions. Thirdly, accused Aman @ Jatin and Amit with their other accomplices (not arrested) were sharing common intention; in furtherance of which accused Aman @ Jatin stabbed injured PW1 Ravi Bansal with knife in abdomen part causing stab injury of size 5x4x4 cms over infraumbilical region. Aforesaid acts of the arraigned accused Aman @ Jatin and Amit are accordingly in the ambit of attempt to commit murder of injured/victim/ complainant PW1 Ravi Bansal in furtherance of their shared common intention. Accordingly, accused (1) Aman @ Jatin and (2) Amit are held guilty and convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
36. Let the accused persons be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court Nisha Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay today i.e 12th December, 2025. Saxena Sahay Date:
Saxena 2025.12.15 13:28:04 +0530 (NISHA SAHAY SAXENA) Principal District & Sessions Judge North-West : Rohini Courts : Delhi SC 318/24 State v. Aman @ Jatin & Anr. Page 27 / 27