Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Etc on 16 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 28171/2016)
FIR No. 146/2013
Police Station Sadar Bazar
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 307/394/397/34 IPC
Charges framed against accused 307/34 IPC, 394/34 IPC
persons. & 397/34 IPC.
State Versus 1. Rohit,
S/o Sh. Laxman,
R/o H. No. 1630, Basti Julahan,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006.
2. Manoj @ Lambu,
S/o Sh. Madan Lal,
R/o H. No. 1653, Basti Julahan,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 15.12.2017
Date of Arguments 13.05.2025
Judgment reserved on 13.05.2025
Judgment pronounced on 16.05.2025
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Rohit & Manoj @ Lambu are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 307/34 IPC, Sec. 394/34 IPC & 397/34 IPC. The case of the prosecution is FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 1 of 40 that on 25.08.2013 at about 10:00 pm at Qutub Road Chowk, in front of Sulabh Sauchalaya, Sadar Bazar, Delhi both the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caught hold of complainant Sh. Sonu and caused injury on his abdomen and neck by knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that if by the act, they would have caused the death of Sh. Sonu and they would have been guilty of murder. Further on the abovesaid date, time and place both the aforesaid persons committed robbery in sum of Rs. 700/- from Sh. Sonu and voluntarily caused hurt upon him by using deadly weapon i.e. knife.
2. The brief facts which are born out from the record of the case are that on 25.08.2013 on receiving DD No. 38A, Ex. PW-1/C regarding stabbing of a person at Sulabh Sauchalaya, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, PW-20 IO/Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh went to the spot of incident where he came to know that the injured had been shifted to hospital by PCR Van. Thereafter PW-20 IO/Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh went to Hindu Rao Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Sonu and found that the injured was being operated in OT and doctor had declared him unfit for statement. Thereafter IO seized sealed parcel containing t-shirt and baniyan of injured from concerned doctor vide seizure memo Ex. PW-20/A. During investigation, PW-7 Ct. Ravinder came to the hospital with copy of DD No. 38A, Ex. PW-1/C and handed over the same to PW-20/IO Inspector Sanjay Kumar and thereafter on the basis of MLC of injured FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 2 of 40 Sonu and DD No. 38A, IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to PW-7 Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR at PS Sadar Bazar. After registration of FIR, PW-20/IO Inspector Sanjay Kumar along with Ct. Ravinder went to spot of incident where PW-20 HC Suresh Chand, In-charge, PCR met them and efforts were made to trace the eyewitness but no eyewitness could be found. During investigation, efforts were also made to fix the identity of accused persons but since injured Sonu remained unfit for statement and was admitted in ICU of Hindu Rao Hospital, therefore, identity of accused persons could not be fixed. Thereafter further investigation of this case was entrusted to PW-12 SI Kuldeep. During investigation, on 31.08.2013, IO recorded statement of injured Sonu in which he disclosed the name of accused persons as Rohit and Manoj who stabbed him. Thereafter, IO tried to search accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj but despite best efforts they could not be traced.
3. During investigation, on 14.10.2013, accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj were apprehended by the IO from their respective houses. Thereafter IO arrested accused Rohit and Manoj in the present case, conducted their personal search and recorded their disclosure statements. During investigation, accused persons got recovered their clothes, which they were worn at the time of commission of offence, from their respective houses and IO also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife at instance of accused Rohit from his house which was hidden by him at the terrace on the roof of toilet covered with polythene FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 3 of 40 sheet. During investigation, IO seized blood samples of injured, prepared site plan of the spot of incident at instance of injured, got recorded statement of injured under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, verified the age of accused Rohit from his school and recorded supplementary disclosure statements of accused persons. IO also obtained opinion about nature of injury on the MLC of injured which was opined as 'dangerous in nature' by concerned doctor, sent the exhibits to FSL for expert opinion and recorded statement of witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed by the IO before the Court through the SHO. After obtaining FSL result, supplementary charge-sheet was also filed before the court.
4. Vide order dated 1 7 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 4 , copy of the charge- sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to both the accused p e r s o n s and vide order dated 22.01.2014 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Vide order dated 30.01.2014, the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC, Sec. 394 read with Sec. 34 IPC & Sec. 397 read with Sec. 34 IPC against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 20 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 4 of 40
7. PW-1 ASI Mangat Ram, was the Duty Officer who proved copy of FIR No. 146/2013, his endorsement on rukka, copy of DD No. 38A and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/D. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
8. PW-2 Sh. Sonu was the injured in the present case. He deposed that on 25.08.2013, he was present at Qutub Road where accused persons Rohit and Manoj met him and they stopped him. He further deposed that accused persons talked to him about the previous quarrel which had taken place 2-2½ months ago. He further deposed that both the accused persons uttered that they would finish him for the old enmity. He also deposed that accused Rohit took out knife and passed signal toward accused Manoj to catch hold of him. He further deposed that thereafter accused Manoj caught hold him and accused Rohit inflicted knife blow injury on his stomach and neck. He also deposed that accused persons attacked on him with intention to kill him and thereafter they ran away from the spot. This witness has correctly identified both the accused persons as well as case properties during his deposition in the court. This witness was cross- examined at length on behalf of accused persons. In his cross- examination, he deposed that about three months ago a dispute with regard to return of Rs. 700/- to accused Rohit and at that time he had given one slap to accused Rohit as he was under
influence of liquor. He admitted that at that time they were FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 5 of 40 having cordial relations with each other. He also deposed that no article was recovered in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had fallen down of his own resulting in the injuries in question or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons due to non-payment of Rs. 700/- by him to them. He also deposed that he had not disclosed to the police that he had to repay Rs. 700/- to accused Rohit. He also deposed that after coming to senses, after about 15 days, he had given his first statement to the police. He also deposed that he remained unconscious for the said 15 days and was not aware about any person coming or going at the said place. He denied the suggestion that he was assaulted and injured by some unknown person, whom he could not identify due to darkness at the spot. He also deposed that at the time of incident both the accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj had also forcefully taken his cash of Rs. 700/- which was kept in his pocket of his pant with the use of knife. He also deposed that his statement was recorded before Ld. MM, under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-11/A. He also deposed that he had stated to the police that the accused persons had robbed his cash of Rs. 700/-. Witness was confronted from his statement Ex. PW-2/DX1. He denied his suggestion that neither accused Rohit had inflicted any injury to him nor had robbed his cash of Rs. 700/- or that he had identified the knife at instance of IO.
9. PW-3 Dr. Prashant Kalita, CMO, Hindu Rao Hospital has proved the MLC of injured Sonu as Ex. PW-3/A. He also FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 6 of 40 deposed that patient was referred to further management to Surgery Department and clothes of injures were seized and handed over to the IO. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
10. PW-4 Dr. Pabitra Dosaj, Emergency Medical Officer (Surgery), deposed that on 25.08.2013 she examined patient Sonu and he was operated. She proved her opinion regarding nature of injuries as 'dangerous' as Ex. PW-4/A. In her cross- examination, she admitted that she had not put any date under her signature on Ex. PW-4/A. She also deposed that no weapon was produced before her for an opinion as to whether the injuries on the patient could have been caused by the said weapon. She denied the suggestion that her opinion that injury was dangerous was without any medical foundation.
11. PW-5 ASI Suresh Chand, was the PCR In-charge. He deposed that on the intervening night of 25-26.08.2013, he was performing his duty in PCR Sugar41 in the area of 12 Tuti Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and at about 11:00 pm he saw Sonu in injured condition. He also deposed that Sonu was taken to the hospital by him with the help of accompanying police official and he was admitted in the hospital. He also deposed that Sonu was injured in this incident and blood was oozing out from his injuries. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
12. PW-6 Dr. Anu Malik, Senior Resident, Hindu Rao Hospital deposed that on 29.11.2013, he had taken the blood sample of FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 7 of 40 injured Sonu and handed over the same with IO along with sample seal. He proved his endorsement on the back of sample seal as Ex. PW-6/A. This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
13. PW-7 Ct. Ravinder, was the Beat Officer at Main Sadar Bazar Market, Delhi. He deposed that in the intervening night of 25-26.08.2013 at about 12:15 am, duty officer called him at the Police Station and handed over DD No. 38A with direction to hand over the same to SI Sanjay Kumar. He further deposed that he went to Bara Hindi Rao Hospital and handed over the same to IO. He also deposed that at about 02:45 am, IO handed over rukka to him for registration of FIR. He also deposed that the injured was not fit for statement at that time. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he again went to the hospital and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. In his cross-examination, he admitted that none of the persons present at the spot had knowledge about the incident in question.
14. PW-8 Ct. Mahender, deposed that on 10.01.2014 he received sealed parcels from MHC(M) along with forwarding letter vide RC No. 4/21/14 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini, DNA Unit. He also deposed that after depositing the parcel at FSL Rohini, he handed over its acknowledgment to MHC(M). He also deposed that so long the parcels remained with him, these were not tempered in any manner and remained intact. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 8 of 40
15. PW-9 HC Darshan, deposed that on 10.01.2014 he joined the investigation in the present case along with IO and Ct. Suresh. He narrated about pointing out of spot of incident i.e. Sharab ka Theka at Qutub Road by both the accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj, during custody and he proved pointing out memos in this regard as Ex. PW-9/A & Ex. PW-9/B. He also narrated about recovery of t-shirt which was worn by accused Rohit at the time of commission of offence from his house situated at H. No. 1630, Basti Julahan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and proved its seizure memo Ex. PW-9/C. He also narrated about recovery of shirt which was worn by accused at the time of commission of offence from his house situated at H. No. 1653, Basti Julahan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and proved its seizure memo Ex. PW-9/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed that accused persons were not shown to any of the shopkeepers to verify whether they were seen earlier involved in any case. He also deposed that IO did not inquire any official of Sulabh Sauchalaya in respect of any incident. He admitted that house of accused Manoj was situated in a very thickly populated area and the neighbours could be called by calling. He also deposed that no person was called from those houses at the time of proceedings conducted at the house of accused Manoj. He also deposed that the neighbourers of accused Rohit had gathered but IO did not record their names. He also deposed that no photograph of place of recovery was taken. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the house of accused persons or that seizure memos and FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 9 of 40 pointing out memos with respect to accused persons were prepared in the police station in order to falsely implicate them in the present case.
16. PW-10 Sh. Arun Kumar Nayal, TGT Math, Government Sarvodya Bal Vidhyalaya, Qutub Road, Delhi has proved Certificate issued by Principal Sh. Mohan Lal with respect to enrollment of accused Rohit in the aforesaid school and date of birth of accused Rohit in school record as Ex. PW-10/A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
17. PW-11 Ms. Kiran Gupta, Ld. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, has proved statement of Victim recorded by her under Sec. 164 Cr.PC as Ex. PW-11/A. This witness was also not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
18. PW-12 SI Kuldeep Singh, deposed that on 31.08.2013 after assignment of further investigation of this case, he went to Hindu Rao Hospital where he recorded statement of injured Sonu in presence of his sister Meenu. He further deposed that he had also recorded statement of Meenu. He also deposed that he searched for accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj who were named by injured Sonu in his statement but despite his best efforts, he could not trace them. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the certificate of fitness for statement was given on the MLC by the doctor who was treating the injured. He also deposed that the injured was not making the statement fluently. He also deposed FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 10 of 40 that the residences of accused persons were raided by policemen in plain clothes on several occasions. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated at the instance of the family members of the injured in order to extort money from them.
19. PW-13 Ct. Suresh, was the Beat Constable in the area. He deposed that on 14.10.2013 he joined the investigation in the present case along with IO. He narrated about apprehension of accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj from their respective houses and proved their arrest memos and personal search memos and disclosure statements as Ex. PW-13/A to Ex. PW-13/F. He also proved the pointing out memos of spot of incident by accused persons as Ex. PW-9/A & Ex. PW-9/B. He also narrated about recovery of t-shirt/shirt worn by the accused persons at the time of commission of offence and proved their seizure memos Ex. PW-9/C & PW-9/D. He further deposed that on 15.10.2013, he again joined the investigation in the present case along with IO and he narrated about recording of supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rohit, Ex. PW-13/G and recovery of weapon of offence. He proved sketch of knife and its seizure memo, prepared by IO as Ex. PW-13/H & Ex. PW-13/I. This witness correctly identified accused persons as well as case properties during his deposition in the court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that neither at the instance or pointing out of accused Manoj any weapon was recovered. He also deposed that IO had not called any person of Sulabh FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 11 of 40 Sauchalaya for joining investigation with regard to the incident in question. He also deposed that at the house of accused Manoj, no public person had joined the investigation. He denied the suggestion that no recovery of knife was effected from the said place in question or that same was planted upon accused to falsely implicate him in the present case.
20. PW-14 Ms. Seema Nain, Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini has proved her detailed DNA Report as Ex. PW-14/A. She also proved her detailed biological and serological reports as Ex. PW-14/B & Ex. PW-14/C. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she did not know about the exhibits belonged to whom. She also denied the suggestion that she had not examined the exhibits in proper manner or that the report had been improperly prepared.
21. PW-15 ASI Surender Kumar, deposed that on 27.02.2018 on direction of SHO, he had collected the subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence from Department of Forensic Medicine. He has proved his authorization in this regard as Ex. PW-15/A. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had neither gone to Hindu Rao Hospital nor he had collected any subsequent opinion nor he had deposited the case property with MHC(M).
22. PW-16 SI Vishwanath, deposed that in the month of February 2018, after assignment of further investigation of this case, he collected subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence, Ex. PW-16/A through ASI Surender, prepared FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 12 of 40 supplementary charge-sheet and filed the same before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not moved application for subsequent opinion and the same was moved by SI Ravi. He also deposed that subsequent opinion, Ex. PW-16/A was not prepared in his presence.
23. PW-17 HC Hari Singh, was the MHC(M) at PS Sadar Bazar. He proved entries made by him in register no. 19 & 21 regarding deposit and movement of case properties as Ex. PW-17/A, Ex. PW-17/B & Ex. PW-17/D. He also proved acknowledgments regarding deposit of case properties at FSL as Ex. PW-17/C & Ex. PW-17/E. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that aforementioned entries were ante- dated and ante-timed. He also deposed that he could not say as to why the case properties were again sent to FSL Rohini. He also deposed that he had not obtained the signature of constable to whom the case properties were handed over for depositing the same with FSL, Rohini in register no. 19.
24. PW-18 Inspector Ravi Kumar, deposed that on 18.02.2018, after assignment of further investigation of the present case, he moved an application for obtaining subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence to Forensic Department, Bara Hindu Road Hospital and deposited the sealed envelop containing knife having the case particulars of the present case. In his cross- examination, he admitted that the copy of said application was not available on record. He also deposed that Hon'ble Court had ordered SHO, PS Sadar Bazar to file subsequent opinion in the FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 13 of 40 present case and as per direction of SHO, he moved an application for the same.
25. PW-19 Dr. Ankit Garg, Assistant Professor (Surgery) has proved the subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence on behalf of Dr. Pavitra Dosaj as Ex. PW-16/A. In his cross- examination, he admitted that Ex. PW-16/A was not prepared by Dr. Pavitra Dosaj in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had never worked with Dr. Pavitra Dosaj or that he had never seen her writing or signing the document.
26. PW-20 Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh, was the Investigating Officer in the present case. He deposed that on 25.08.2013 on receiving DD No. 38A, Ex. PW-1/C regarding stabbing of a person at Sulabh Sauchalaya, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, he went to the spot of incident where he came to know that the injured had been shifted to hospital by PCR Van. He further deposed that thereafter he went to Hindu Rao Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Sonu and found that the injured was being operated in OT and doctor had declared him unfit for statement. He further deposed that he seized sealed parcel containing t-shirt and baniyan of injured from concerned doctor vide seizure memo Ex. PW-20/A. He also deposed that thereafter PW-7 Ct. Ravinder came to the hospital with copy of DD No. 38A, Ex. PW-1/C and handed over the same to him and thereafter on the basis of MLC of injured Sonu and DD No. 38A, he prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR at PS Sadar Bazar. He further deposed that FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 14 of 40 along with Ct. Ravinder went to spot of incident where HC Suresh Chand, In-charge PCR met them and thereafter they made efforts to trace the eyewitness but no success could be achieved. He also deposed that on 30.08.2013, further investigation was carried by SI Kuldeep. He further deposed that on 06.10.2013 he again took up the investigation of the present case. He narrated about apprehension of accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj from their respective houses and proved their arrest memos and personal search memos as Ex. PW-13/A to Ex. PW-13/D. He also proved their disclosure statements as Ex. PW-13/E & Ex. PW-13/F. He also proved the pointing out memos of spot of incident by accused persons as Ex. PW-9/A & Ex. PW-9/B. He also narrated about recovery of t-shirt/shirt worn by accused persons from their respective houses and proved their seizure memos Ex. PW-9/C & PW-9/D. He further deposed that on 15.10.2013, he again joined the investigation in the present case along with IO and he narrated about recording of supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rohit, Ex. PW-13/G and recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife at instance of accused Rohit from his house. He proved sketch of knife, its seizure memo and site plan of recovery of knife as Ex. PW-13/H, Ex. PW-13/I & Ex. PW-20/D. He also proved seizure memo of blood sample of injured, site plan prepared at instance of injured, application moved before Ld. Concerned Court for interrogation of accused persons and supplementary disclosure statements of accused persons as Ex. PW-20/E to Ex. PW-20/I. This witness correctly identified accused persons as well as case properties FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 15 of 40 during his deposition in the court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Suresh was witness of the incident. He also admitted that no knife was recovered from the place of incident. He denied the suggestion that no public person was joined or no notice was served or no statement was recorded since he had not gone in search of accused persons. He also deposed that mother and sister of accused Rohit were present at the house and he requested them to sign the arrest memo but they refused. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not arrested in the manner deposed above or that hence no public persons were got joined during that proceedings or that hence signature of family members of accused were not obtained. He also deposed that no public person was got joined in the police station while recording disclosure statement of accused persons. He also deposed that the site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared later on at the instance of victim. He denied the suggestion that Rohit had not given supplementary disclosure statement or that he had not got recovered knife or that same was planted upon him. He also deposed that no photography or videography of recovery of knife was conducted. He denied the suggestion that knife was planted in Police Station upon accused Rohit or that accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present case.
27. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statements of both the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. Accused persons stated that a false case had been registered against them.
FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 16 of 40 They further stated that there was small issue of money and previous enmity with the injured and therefore a false case was prepared against them. They also stated that they were innocent. Accused persons have not lead defence evidence.
28. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. R. K. Saini, Ld. Chief, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for both the accused persons.
29. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu has completely supported the case of the prosecution and he has also identified the accused persons as well as the weapon of offence during the trial. He also argued that motive for the commission of offence has been duly proved by the prosecution and the same has also been admitted by the accused in the cross-examination of witnesses as well as in their statements recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. He also argued that none of the prosecution witness has turned hostile. He also argued that the nature of injury has been opined as 'dangerous' in nature and hence ingredients of Sec. 307/34 have been duly proved by the prosecution. He also argued that at the time of commission of robbery, accused persons had caused hurt on the person of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu and they had used deadly weapon i.e. knife for the commission of robbery and hence ingredients of offences punishable under Sec.
FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 17 of 40 394/34 IPC & 397/34 IPC have been duly proved by the prosecution. He also argued that the all the proceedings have been duly proved by the police witnesses and the prosecution witnesses are of the sterling quality and hence accused persons should be convicted under all the sections under which charges have been framed against them.
30. Per Contra Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated on a money dispute of Rs. 700/-. He also argued that no independent eyewitness has been joined in the investigation by the IO. He also argued that the statement of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was recorded by the IO at a belated stage. He also argued that in his first statement before the court, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu did not depose anything about the commission of offence of robbery and same was deposed by him on his recalling under Sec. 311 Cr.PC. He also argued that it is not clear as to on which date, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was discharged from hospital. He also argued that no independent witnesses were joined by the IO at the time recovery of case properties. He also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, both the accused persons should be acquitted under all the sections under which charges have been framed against them.
31. In the present case, charges under Sec. 307/34 IPC, 394/34 FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 18 of 40 IPC & 397/34 have been framed against both the accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under:-
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 cause to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery:-
If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt:-
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 19 of 40 person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
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. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused.
33. PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu is the star witness of the prosecution as he is the sole eyewitness of the alleged incident and therefore his testimony is to be appreciated as per the established principle of law pertaining to testimony of sole eyewitness.
34. PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu deposed that on 25.08.2013, he was present at Qutub Road and at that time, accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj @ Lambu met him and stopped him there. He further deposed that both the accused persons uttered that they will finish him for the old enmity and thereafter Rohit took out knife and also passed signal to Manoj to catch him and FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 20 of 40 thereafter accused Rohit inflicted knife blow in his stomach and neck. PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu has also stated this fact in his statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-2/DX-1 as well as his statement, Ex. PW-11/A given to the Ld. MM. Thus, there is complete consistency in the statement given by PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu in the court, to the Ld. MM under Sec. 164 Cr.PC and to the IO under Sec. 161 Cr.PC with respect to the presence of accused persons at the spot of incident, respective role of accused persons and the injuries caused on his person. PW-5 ASI Suresh Chand has deposed that on the intervening night of 25-26.08.2013, he found PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu in injured condition at the spot deposed by PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu. PW-3 Dr. Prashant Kalita has proved MLC of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu, exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. As per the contents of MLC, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was brought to the Casualty of Hospital on 25.08.2013 at about 11:15 pm by PW-5 ASI Suresh Chand and on local examination, sharp wound injury on abdomen and lacerated wound on neck. Thus, the version of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu with respect to the injuries on specific parts of body caused by sharp edged weapon has been corroborated by PW-3 Dr. Prashant Kalita. In the cross-examination of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu, accused persons have failed to put any dent on the version of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu with respect to the abovesaid facts.
35. PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu has specifically deposed that accused persons uttered that they will finish him for old enmity. He also deposed that he was assaulted with knife on his neck and FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 21 of 40 stomach. Both the parts of body are sensitive in nature and the knife can cut the veins of neck and stomach. Causing more than one injury with a sharp edged weapon clearly shows the intention of accused persons to kill PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu. He also deposed that accused persons attacked him with the intention to kill him. Accused persons have not cross-examined PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu on the aspect of utterring abovesaid word and on the aspect of attacking PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu with the intention to kill him. Moreover, the nature of injury has been opined to be 'dangerous' in nature by PW-4 Pabitra Dosaj. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was stabbed in stomach and neck with the intention to kill him.
36. PW-3 Dr. Prashant Kalita has proved the MLC of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu, exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. He deposed that on 25.08.2013, patient Sonu was brought to the hospital by ASI Suresh Chand and he had examined the said patient. He also deposed that he prepared MLC of patient Sonu, Ex. PW-3/A and thereafter the patient was referred for further management to Surgery Department. As per MLC of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu, Ex. PW-3/A, he was brought to the hospital with the alleged history of assault. Thus, someone had assaulted PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu and it was not a self inflicted injury. None of the doctors have deposed that the injuries on the person of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu were self inflicated in nature nor the accused persons have taken such defence. As per the MLC of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu, Ex. PW-3/A, there was sharp wound on the abdomen measuring 3 x 1 FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 22 of 40 cm and there was lacerated wound on the neck measuring 4 x 2 cm.
37. PW-20/IO Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh deposed that on receiving DD No. 38A, Ex. PW-1/C, he went to the hospital where PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was being operated in the Operation Threater and doctor had decleared him unfit for statement. PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was declared fit for statement on 31.08.2013 at 11:20 am i.e. after six days of the alleged incident. As per the medical report, Ex. PW-4/A, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was admitted to the hospital on 25.08.2013 and he was discharged from hospital on 26.10.2013 i.e. after two months of his admission in the hospital for the injuries caused on his person. PW-4 Dr. Pabitra Dosaj deposed that on 25.08.2013, she was posted at Surgical Emergency of Hindu Rao Hospital and on that day, patient Sonu, S/o Sh. Hari Chand was referred to the surgical department from casualty department. She further deposed that the patient was examined by her and he was also operated. She also proved her opinion, Ex. PW-4/A regarding the nature of injury on the person of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu as 'dangerous' in nature. Thus, due to the injuries caused on the person of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu, his life was endangered and his death could have been caused. The said injuries were caused by the accused persons intentionally and from their acts, it is clear that both were acting in furtherance of their common intention. Accused persons have failed to put any dent on the version of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu as well as on the versions of PW-3 Dr. FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 23 of 40 Prashant Kalita and PW-4 Dr. Pabitra Dosaj with respect to the nature of injuries caused on the person of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu. Moreover, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu has deposed that accused persons had attacked him with the intention to kill him. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 307/34 IPC.
38. Charges under Sec. 394/34 & 397/34 IPC have also been framed against the accused persons for the commission of robbery and using of deadly weapon for the said purpose. The first statement of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu, under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-2/DX-1 was recorded by IO on 31.08.2013. In the said statement, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu had stated about the incident of stabbing but he has not stated anything about the commission of robbery upon him. For the first time, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu stated about the commission of robbery upon him in his statement, Ex. PW-11/A recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC on 21.12.2013 i.e. after about four months of the incident, which raises serious doubt about the commission of offence of robbery. For the first time, examination-in-chief of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was recorded before the court on 03.03.2014 wherein he had deposed about the incident of stabbing and he had not deposed anything about the incident of robbery. In pursuance of order dated 04.05.2016, passed by Ld. Predecessor, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was recalled for his further examination-in-chief on 15.11.2017 in which he deposed that accused persons had also forcefully taken his cash in sum of Rs. 700/- which was kept in FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 24 of 40 his pocket. Thus, there is no consistency in the statements of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu with respect to the incident of robbery and hence his testimony with respect to the incident of robbery does not seem to be reliable. Moreover, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu and accused persons were known to each other and PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu has specifically deposed that the incident had taken place due to the old enmity between him and accused persons with respect to the return of money to accused Rohit. In view of the different versions brought on record by PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu, this court is of considered opinion that the incident of robbery in the present case is doubtful and the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 394/34 & 397/34 IPC.
39. PW-20/IO Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh deposed that accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj @ Lambu made disclosure statement Ex. PW-13/E & Ex. PW-13/F on the basis of which t-shirt was recovered from house of accused Rohit and shirt was recovered from house of accused Manoj @ Lambu which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/C & PW-9/D. PW-9 HC Darshan and PW-13 Ct. Suresh have corroborated the version of PW-20 IO/Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh. He also deposed that accused Rohit made supplementary disclosure statement, Ex. PW-13/G on the basis of which weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from house of accused Rohit which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-13/I. PW-13 Ct. Suresh has corroborated the version of PW-20 FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 25 of 40 IO/Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh. PW-13 Ct. Suresh Kumar in his cross-examination deposed that IO had asked 4-5 passerby to join the investigation but none agreed. Generally people do not join the investigation due to the inconvenience caused to them and non-joining of public witness at the time of recovery is not always fatal to the case of prosecution. This court is of considered opinion that recovery of t-shirt, Ex. P-1, shirt, Ex. P-2 and knife Ex. P-3 at instance of accused persons has been duly proved by the prosecution. PW-19 Dr. Ankit Garg has proved the subsequent opinion given by Dr. Pabitra Dosaj, Ex. PW-16/A. As per the expert opinion given by Dr. Pabitra Dosaj after examining the recovered knife, the injuries caused to PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu could have been caused by the weapon examined. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that the recovered knife, Ex. P-3 was used by accused persons in the commission of offence.
40. PW-14 Ms. Seema Nain, Assistant Director, FSL has proved her DNA, Ex. PW-14/A, serological report Ex. PW-14/B & Biological report, Ex. PW-14/C. As per the biological report, Ex. PW-14/C, blood was detected on exhibits 1a (t-shirt of injured Sonu), 1b (baniyan of injured Sonu), 2 (t-shirt of accused Rohit), 4 (knife) & 5 (blood sample of injured Sonu) and the blood found of Ex. 1a, 1b & 2 was human blood, though, no reaction took place with respect to the blood found on Ex. 4 (knife). As per the DNA report, Ex. PW-14/A, the blood found on exhibits 1a & 1b was of injured Sonu. No DNA test was conducted with respect to blood found on the knife and t-shirt of FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 26 of 40 accused Rohit. Thus, the DNA report, Ex. PW-14/A is neither in favour of prosecution nor in favour of accused persons as only it has been proved that the blood found on the clothes of injured Sonu was of injured Sonu.
41. PW-2 Sh. Sonu is the injured in the present case. He has specifically deposed against the accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj @ Lambu with respect to the injuries caused on his person. There is complete consistency in his statements i.e. given in the court, given to the Ld. MM under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-11/A and statement given to the IO, under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-2/DX-1 The testimony of the injured witness is to be appreciated as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard.
42. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab cited as (2009) 9 SCC 719 while dealing with the evidentiary value of injured witness has observed as under:-
"28. Darshan Singh (PW-4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the Doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of injured witness should be relied FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 27 of 40 upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
43. In 'State of U.P Vs. Kishan Chand', a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends supports to its testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan Vs. State of Haryana)."
44. Nothing has been brought on record by the accused persons to put any dent on the version of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu with respect to the injuries caused on his person. The nature of injuries caused on the person PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu have been opined to be 'dangerous' in nature by PW-4 Dr. Pabitra Dosaj. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu had named the wrong persons other than the persons who caused said dangerous injuries on his person in furtherance of their common intention. Moreover, accused persons have admitted that there was money dispute between them and PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 28 of 40 India in Jarnail Singh & Ors. (Supra) & Kishan Chand (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that the testimony of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu cannot be discarded without any ground and hence the testimony of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu being injured is reliable.
45. Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused persons has argued that prosecution has failed to prove the motive of commission of offence and the benefit of same should be given to accused persons. Motive is relevant under Sec. 8 of Indian Evidence Act. Motive is the force that moves a man to do a particular work. Generally there can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8 of Evidence Act, several factors including preparation, previous threat, previous altercation, previous litigation between the accused and the victim becomes relevant. The mere existence of motive is by itself is not an incriminating circumstance. Motive cannot be a substitute of proof, however, it is an corroborating factor in proving the case of the prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence is of vital importance in a criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial evidence motive itself will be a circumstance which the Court has to consider deeply. The existence of motive which operates in the mind of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case.
46. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3 FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 29 of 40 SCC 654 observed as under:-
"15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of accused is fairly well settle by a long line of decision of this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where the prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence on one hand and those were relies upon the testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into background in cases where the prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely, even if the prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 30 of 40 mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye witnesses."
47. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment tilted as Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Punjab cited as (1996) 9 SCC 233 observed as under:-
"7.... The motives may be minor but nonetheless they did provide occasion for attack on the deceased by the appellants. That apart, even in absence of motive, the guilt of culprit can be established in a given case if the other evidence on record is trustworthy in the absence of proof of motive has never been considered as fatal to the prosecution case where the ocular evidence is found reliable".
48. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Chunni Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh cited as (2010) SCC 496 observed as under:-
"12. This in our estimation is the reason and motive for the crime and not the one which was advanced by the Counsel appearing for the appellant, or by the time the incident had taken place, the deceased had FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 31 of 40 legalized his relationship and married the said Chandrakaliya therby giving legal status to PW-1 and PW-2 as his sons. In that situation, there was no possibility at all of the appellant inheriting the property of his uncle and therefore the plea taken by the appellant regarding motive appears to be without merit. Rather on the other hand, we find clear motive on the part of appellant/accused committing the murder of his uncle".
49. In the present case, PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu has specifically deposed that two-two and half months prior to the present incident, a quarrel had taken place between him and accused persons. He also deposed that dispute between them was with respect to return of Rs. 700/- which he had taken from accused Rohit on credit and he had also given one slap to accused Rohit at that time as he was under the influence of alcohol. Accused person in answer to questions put to them under Sec. 313 Cr.PC have specifically admitted that there was small issue of money and there was previous enmity between them and PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu. Thus, the accused persons have admitted the motive for the commission of offence, which is relevant under Sec. 8 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgments titled as Sheo Shankar Singh (supra), Raghubir Singh (supra) and Chunni Lal (supra), this court is of considered opinion that motive has been duly proved by the prosecution in the present FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 32 of 40 case.
50. The subsequent conduct of accused persons is relevant in the present case. Prosecution may corroborate its case from the conduct of accused also. The previous and subsequent conduct of accused is relevant under Sec. 8 of Indian Evidence Act. A fact can be proved by the conduct of accused and surrounding circumstances. The conduct of accused in absconding after the commission of offence, in destroying the evidence, behaving in an unnatural way etc are relevant under Sec. 8 of Indian Evidence Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Prithipal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anrs. Cited as (2012) 1 SCC 10 while confirming the conviction of appellant observed as under:-
"78. Most of the appellants had taken alibi for screening themselves from the offences. However, none of them could establish the same. The Courts below have considered this issue elaborately as in order to avoid repetition, we do not want to re-examine the same. However, we would like to clarify that the conduct of accused subsequent to the commission of crime in such a case, may be very relevant. If there is sufficient evidence to screen/absolve himself from the offence, such circumstance may point towards his guilt. Such a view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu Vs. State of Bombay."
FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 33 of 40
51. PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu was declared fit for statement on 31.08.2013 and on the same day his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-2/DX-1 was recorded in which he named both the accused persons. PW-20/IO Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh has specifically deposed that he made efforts to trace accused persons by visiting their house but they could not be found. Thus, the accused persons were absconding after the commission of offence. They have not explained their conduct in this regard either in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or their statements recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment tilted as 'Prithipal Singh & Ors. (supra)', this court is of considered opinion that subsequent conduct of accused persons by absconding from the spot of incident and concealing themselves is a relevant fact under Sec. 8 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it indicates towards their guilt.
52. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence brought on record against him by the prosecution and to accord him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
53. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766 has held that:-
it was the duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances proved against FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 34 of 40 him while making statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance was an additional link in chain of circumstances to sustain charges against you.
54. Similary Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256 has held that:-
if the accused remains silent or in complete denial, the Court can take adverse intense against you.
55. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6 SCC 1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C observed as under:-
"130. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in reply to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65,67,72,75 and 201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code."
FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 35 of 40
56. In the present case, the statements of accused persons under Sec. 313 Cr.PC were recorded and in reply to the most of the questions put to them they have stated either 'it is incorrect' or 'I do not know'. In answers, they have also stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to small issue of money and previous enmity with injured Sonu. Accused persons have not taken any specific defence to show that they were not involved in the commission of offence either in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses or in their statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by the accused persons are evasive in nature and they have not explained as to why, the prosecution witnesses have deposed against them or as to why PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu has named them or as to why they were absconding. In these circumstances, applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Neel Kumar (supra), Phula Singh (Supra and Sidharth Vashisth (supra)' this court is of considred opinion that accused persons have not furnished any explanation for these circumstance hence these circumstances are additional link in the chain of circumstances evidence against them.
57. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 36 of 40 reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
58. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 37 of 40 withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 38 of 40 spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
59. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
60. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 39 of 40
61. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that injured PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu is witness of sterling quality as his version with respect to the incident of stabbing is natural and he has also withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-2/injured Sh. Sonu with respect to incident of stabbing, is clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and medical evidence on record and the circumstances. Prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 307/34 IPC against accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj @ Lambu beyond reasonable doubts. However, prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 394/34 IPC & Sec. 397/34 IPC against accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj @ Labmu beyond reasonable doubts.
62. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely Rohit and Manoj @ Lambu are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC. Both accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 394/34 IPC & Sec. 397/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR KHARTA Announced in the open court KHARTA Date: 2025.05.16 on 16th day of May, 2025 16:10:40 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:16.05.2025 FIR No. 146/2013, PS: Sadar Bazar State Vs. Rohit & Anr. Page No. 40 of 40