Delhi District Court
State vs Mohinder Thapa on 13 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-006972-2018
Sessions Case No. 410/18
State Vs. Mohinder Thapa
S/o Sh. Ganesh Thapa
R/o H. No. A-221, Vijay Vihar
Phase-I, Delhi
FIR No. : 237/18
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
U/s : 307/323 IPC
Date of institution : 02.07.2018
Date of arguments : 22.08.2024
Date of pronouncement : 13.09.2024
Appearance :
Sh. G. S. Guraya, Chief Public Prosecutor for State.
Ms. Usha Rani, LAC for accused.
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case, in brief, are that about one week before 06.04.2018, Mohinder Thapa had a quarrel with Brijesh Singh in the park of Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi Mohinder Thapa at that time threatened Brijesh Singh that if he met him again, he will beat him. On 06.04.2018, Brijesh Singh, alongwith his friend Gaurav, has gone to M2K, Rohini and took food. While they were returning and reached Shukar Bazar Road, Vijay Vihar, Phase-II, K-Block, Delhi, Brijesh Singh noticed Mohinder Thapa standing at a rehri of chowmin. It was about 10:30 PM.
SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 1 of 25 Mohinder Thapa started abusing Brijesh Singh. Brijesh Singh and Gaurav asked him not to abuse, on which Mohinder Thapa started manhandling Brijesh Singh. Mohinder Thapa picked a knife from the shop of chowmin and attacked on the abdomen of Brijesh Singh. He sustained injury, fell down and started bleeding. Mohinder Thapa fled away from the spot. Brijesh Singh was removed to BSA Hospital, where he was medically examined. On the statement of Brijesh Singh, FIR was registered. Accused was apprehended and he got recovered the knife used in the commission of offence from his house. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused. Ld MM, after complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence punishable U/s 307 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions.
2. The accused was charged for the offence punishable U/s 307/323 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. Brijesh Singh was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 06.04.2018 at about 9 PM, he alongwith his friend Gaurav went to M2K, Rohini for having dinner. After taking dinner while they were returning to their homes, they reached at the corner of K Block at about 10:30 PM. Brijesh Singh noticed accused Mohinder Thapa (correctly identified) standing near the chowmin rehri. He was knowing the accused as one week prior, he had a quarrel with the accused. Accused abused him at that SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 2 of 25 time and also threatened "main tujhe phir marunga".
4. When the accused saw them, he started abusing and quarreling with him. He and Gaurav protested as to why he is abusing and quarreling with them. Accused went to the chowmin rehri, picked up a knife from the rehri and hit on his abdomen. Thereafter, the accused ran away. He started bleeding and fell down on the ground. His relative Gagan removed him to BSA hospital where he was treated. Police came in the hospital, but he was not in a position to give statement. Next morning, police again came in the hospital and he gave statement Ex.PW1/A. He remained in the hospital for about 8-10 days. He was also operated upon. He was discharged, but his position again deteriorated. He was admitted to Jaipur Golden Hospital where he was again operated upon. Accused also tried to stab him again after giving him one blow in the abdomen, but he managed to hold the knife with his hand and Gaurav also helped him. He told that his blood stained clothes were taken by the doctors in BSA Hospital. He identified his clothes, i.e. one black colour sandow baniyan with a cut mark on the lower abdomen, one blood stained t-shirt and one blood stained shirt having cut mark on the lower abdomen. The witness correctly identified the clothes as Ex.P1-colly. He was not able to identify the knife, but stated that the blade appeared to be the same, but he cannot identify the handle as it was covered with the hand of accused.
5. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he denied the suggestion that there were 5-6 persons with him when he was returning after taking dinner. He stated that only Gaurav SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 3 of 25 was with him at that time. He denied the suggestion that one week prior to the incident when the quarrel took place between him and the accused, he threatened the accused to kill him. On that day, his shoulder struck with the accused and on that issue, arguments took place between him and the accused. Accused threatened him and thereafter, he left the place. One or two persons were with the accused at that time. One girl was also present there. He denied the suggestion that he quarreled with the accused on the issue of that girl, who was present in the park. He knew that girl as she used to come to his shop, but has no relation with that girl. He had not informed the police or made call at 100 number with respect to the earlier quarrel. There was no enmity between him and the accused when the earlier quarrel took place.
6. It took them about 30-45 minutes in taking the dinner. They did not consume liquor after dinner. He does not remember the exact time when they left M2K. The distance between M2K and place of incident would be 3km. They were on his motorcycle, but he does not remember as to who was driving the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that his 5-6 friends were also with him at chowmin shop.
7. He denied the suggestion that he threatened the accused saying, "us ladki ki taraf dobara dekhega to tujhe jaan se maar dunga", or that he and Gaurave attacked accused. He denied the suggestion that he was angry with the accused due to that girl. He denied the suggestion that accused also accompanied him to the hospital.
SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 4 of 25
8. Gaurav Kumar was examined as PW2. He corroborated the testimony of PW1. He stated that he, alongwith his friend Brijesh, was returning home after taking dinner at M2K, Rohini. At about 10:30 PM, when they reached weekly market, Shukar Bazar Road, K Block, Vijay Vihar-II, Delhi, they saw accused present on the shop of chowmin. He has correctly identified the accused. On seeing Brijesh, accused started abusing him. When he and Brijesh intervened, accused got annoyed and started beating them. During that scuffle, accused brought one vegetable knife from the chowmin shop and stabbed on the stomach of Brijesh. Brijesh fell down on the road and was bleeding. Accused ran away from the spot. Gagan relative of Brijesh came there and removed Brijesh to BSA Hospital. Someone called the police. Later on police also recorded the statement of Brijesh. He had shown the place of incident to the IO, who prepared the site plan of the place of incident.
9. IO arrested the accused from his house at his instance vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C. Accused got recovered one knife from his house. IO prepared the sketch Ex.PW2/D of the knife. The knife was put in cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/E. The witness has identified the knife as Ex.P2.
10. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he stated that he has no knowledge if accused had any quarrel with Brijesh on the issue of girl friend or whether there was any previous enmity between Brijesh and the accused. The distance SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 5 of 25 between the place of incident and M2K is about 3-4 kms. They have not consumed liquor. He was knowing the accused prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that accused was running a chowmin shop.
11. He denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done in the PS. He denied the suggestion that accused did not cause any injuries to Brijesh or that Brijesh himself had sustained injuries or that they had not taken Brijesh to the hospital.
12. Brijesh was taken to hospital on motorcycle driven by Gagan. He denied the suggestion that knife was not recovered in his presence or that no such proceedings pertaining to knife were conducted by the IO.
13. Gagan was examined as PW3. He deposed that on 06.04.2018 at about 10:30 PM, he was present at Shukar Bazar Road, K Block, Vijay Vihar-II, where accused was standing at a chowmin shop. He has correctly identified the accused. In the meantime, his cousin Brijesh also came there with his friend Gaurav. On seeing Brijesh, accused started abusing him. Brijesh and Gaurav tried to make him understand but he got annoyed and started beating Brijesh and Gaurav. During the quarrel, accused brought one vegetable knife from the chowmin shop and gave a blow of knife on the stomach of Brijesh. Brijesh fell down on the road and started bleeding. Accused fled away from the spot after causing injuries. He removed Brijesh to BSA hospital alongwith Gaurav. IO came to the hospital and recorded his statement.
SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 6 of 25
14. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he stated that he has no knowledge if there was any previous enmity between Brijesh and the accused or that whether quarrel had taken place between Brijesh and accused on the issue of common girl friend. No quarrel had taken place between complainant and the accused prior to the incident. He recognized the accused by his face as he used to stand on the chowmin shop. He denied the suggestion that accused was running a chowmin shop or that accused did not cause any injury to Brijesh or that Brijesh had sustained injuries himself. He drove the motorcycle on which Brijesh was taken to the hospital.
15 Dr. Abhay Kumar, CMO, BSA Hospital was examined as PW4. He deposed that on 06.04.2018 at about 11:14 PM, injured Brijesh Singh S/o Mahavir Singh, aged about 22 years male was brought to the hospital with alleged history of stab injury around 10:45 PM. He examined the injured and prepared MLC Ex.PW4/A. He found one incised wound over right lower abdomen with omentum exposed 5X1X1 cm. He referred the injured to SR Surgery. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
16. HC Jagmohan was examined as PW5. He deposed that on 06.04.2018, he was working as DD writer at PS Vijay Vihar. On that day at about 11:08 PM, wireless operator came to the Duty Officer room and informed that knife stab at Vijay Vihar-II, Shukar Bazar Road and injured admitted at Ambedkar Hospital. On this information, he recorded DD No. 122B and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW5/A. The DD was SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 7 of 25 assigned to ASI Ravinder on telephone.
17. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he stated that he has no personal knowledge about the incident.
18. W/SI Asha Rani was examined as PW6. On 07.04.2018, she was working as Duty Officer at PS Vijay Vihar. She deposed that on that day at about 10:40 AM, ASI Omvir brought a rukka sent by SI Mahavir Singh. On the basis of the rukka, she got registered FIR No. 237/18, U/s 307 IPC. She made endorsement Ex.PW6/A on the rukka regarding registration of FIR. She proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW6/B. The certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW6/C. She handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Omvir to hand over the same to SI Mahavir.
19. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, she stated that she has no personal knowledge about the incident.
20. Ct. Manoj Kumar was examined as PW7. On 31.05.2018 on the instructions of SI Mahavir Singh, he collected two sealed samples alongwith sample seal from MHC(M) ASI Sanjeev Kumar vide RC No. 212/21/18 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. After depositing the parcels, he obtained the receipt and handed over the same to the MHC(M). As long as the parcels remained in his custody, neither the seals nor the samples were tempered. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 8 of 25
21. ASI Omvir was examined as PW8. He deposed that on 06.04.2018, on receipt of DD No. 122B, he alongwith SI Mahavir Singh reached Shukar Bazar Road, K Block, Vijay Vihar, Phase-II. They came to know that a quarrel had taken place between Brijesh Singh and Mohinder Thapa wherein Brijesh Singh had sustained injuries and had been taken to BSA Hospital. Thereafter, they went to BSA Hospital, where injured Brijesh Singh was found admitted. Injured was unfit for statement and hence, his statement could not be recorded. DD No. 122B was kept pending and they returned to the PS.
22. Next day, he alongwith ASI Mahavir Singh again reached BSA Hospital. The doctor declared the injured fit for statement. Doctor also handed over one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of "DOCTOR BSA HOSPITAL" alongwith sample seal, which was taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex.PW8/X.
23. IO recorded statement of injured, prepared the rukka and handed over to him to get the FIR registered. He came back to the hospital after registration of FIR and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. One Gaurav who claimed himself to be the eye witness met them in the hospital. He alongwith IO and Gaurav reached the spot where IO prepared the site plan at the instance of Gaurav. Accused was arrested from his house, i.e. A-221, Vijay Vihar at the instance of eye witness Gaurav vide memo Ex.PW2/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C. SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 9 of 25
24. Accused got recovered one blood stained knife from the corner of his house. IO prepared the sketch of the knife and took its measurements. The knife was put in a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/E. Thereafter, they returned to the PS. IO deposited the case property in the malkhana. He identified the accused. He also identified the knife as Ex.P2.
25. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, he deposed that before reaching the spot, they did not have any knowledge as to between whom the quarrel had taken place. He has no knowledge if there was previous enmity between Brijesh and Mohinder Thapa.
26. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused or that he did not join the investigation. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were completed while sitting in the PS or that accused was called in the PS and falsely implicated in the case. He denied the suggestion that knife was planted upon the accused.
27. Dr. Rekha Diwan, Specialist Surgery, BSA Hospital was examined as PW9. She was deputed by MS to depose in place of Dr. Prem Sagar Chaudhary, who had left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. She is well conversant with his handwriting and signatures as Dr. Prem Sagar Chaudhary has worked under her supervision in BSA Hospital. She identified the endorsement of Dr. Prem Sagar Chaudhary on the backside of MLC Ex.PW4/A. On the front side of the MLC, SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 10 of 25 Dr. Prem Sagar Chaudhary had opined the nature of injury as grievous. Testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
28. SI Sanjeev Kumar was examined as PW10. He deposed that on 07.04.2018, he was posted as ASI in PS Vijay Vihar and was working as MHC(M). On that day, SI Mahavir Singh deposited as sealed parcel having seal of MS containing knife and another parcel containing clothes of injured Brijesh. He made entry at serial No. 303/18 in register No. 19 and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/A.
29. On 25.04.2018, SI Mahavir Singh collected the parcel containing knife vide RC No. 160/21/18. He proved the copy of the RC as Ex.PW10/B. On 07.05.2018, IO deposited back the pulanda containing the knife and he made endorsement to this effect in register No. 19 against entry at serial No. 303/18 from point X to X1.
30. On 31.05.2018, he sent the exhibits of this case to FSL through Ct. Manoj vide RC No. 212/21/18 and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW10/C. He deposed that the property remained in malkhana it was not tempered with in any manner.
31. Dr. Vijay Dhankar was examined as PW11. He deposed that on 25.04.2018, he examined MLC of injured Brijesh and the knife which was received in sealed parcel having seal of MS. After examination, he gave the opinion that the injuries mentioned in the MLC can be caused by the knife SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 11 of 25 examined by him. He prepared the detailed report having the photographs of knife examined and proved. The same is Ex.PW11/A.
32. During cross examination by Ld. LAC for accused, he denied the suggestion that he casually prepared the report without examining the knife and without going through the MLC.
33. SI Surender was examined as PW12. He filed the supplementary chargesheet alongwith FSL result in the case. The testimony of the witness has gone uncontroverted and unchallenged.
34. Retd. SI Mahavir Singh was examined as PW13. He deposed that on 06.04.2018, he was posted at PS Vijay Vihar as SI. On that day at about 11:08 am, he received information about the quarrel which had been taken place at Shukar Bazar Road, K Block, Phase-2, Vijay Vihar, vide DD No. 122B. He along with ASI Omvir reached the spot where they came to know that Mohinder Thapa stabbed Brijesh Singh who has been taken to BSA Hospital by his friend. He along with Omvir reached BSA Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Brijesh Singh. The injured was not fit for statement and hence, his statement could not be recorded. He kept that DD No. 122B pending and returned to PS.
35. On 07.04.2018 in the morning, he alongwith ASI Omvir went to BSA Hospital and recorded the statement of injured Brijesh Singh as he was declared fit for statement. He SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 12 of 25 made endorsement on Ex.PW1/A and prepared the rukka Ex.PW13/A. He handed over the rukka to ASI Omvir for getting the FIR registered. ASI Omvir went to PS and after sometime ASI Omvir returned back and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him.
36. The doctor handed over to him one sealed parcel having blood stained clothes of injured with seal of the hospital. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/X.
37. One eye witness namely Gaurav met them in the hospital. He alongwith Gaurav and ASI Omvir reached the place of incident. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/B at the instance of Gaurav. They alongwith Gaurav went to the house of accused situated at A-221, Vijay Vihar, Phase-2, Delhi, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C.
38. The accused got recovered one knife. He prepared the sketch of the said knife Ex.PW2/D and took its measurement. The knife was put in the closed parcel sealed with the seal of MS. Seal after use was handed over to ASI Omvir. Parcel was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E. Thereafter, they returned to PS alongwith accused and the case property. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Accused was also got medically examined. He correctly identified the accused. He also identified the knife as Ex.P2.
SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 13 of 25
39. During cross examination by Ld. LAC for accused he deposed that the accused was arrested at about 1:30 pm. He does not know the name of the relative who informed about the arrest of accused. He asked the public persons to join but they did not join.
40. He reached the spot at 11:15 pm and remained there for about 20-25 minutes. He did not prepare the documents. He denied the suggestion that there was enmity between Brijesh and accused and that is why in order to take revenge from the accused, Brijesh falsely implicated him in the present case. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in this case or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. He denied the suggestion that knife was planted upon the accused.
41. Dr. Suminder Kaur, Sr. Forensic Chemical Examiner (Asstt. Director), Biology Division, RFSL, was examined as PW14. She deposed that on 30.05.2018 two sealed parcels were submitted and were allotted to her for DNA examination. On examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1a (baniyan of injured), 1b (shirt of injured), 1c (T-shirt of injured) & Ex.3 i.e. knife). The DNA profile was generated and that is sufficient to show that connect the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 1a, 1b, 1c is similar with the DNA profile from the source of exhibits 3 i.e. knife. Exhibits were resealed with the seal of SRK, RFSL, CH. PURI, NEW DELHI. She proved the report alongwith allelic data as Ex.PW14/A. During cross examination by Ld. LAC, she admitted that she has no personal SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 14 of 25 knowledge about the present case. She denied the suggestion that report prepared by her is false and fabricated.
42 Accused has admitted the genuineness of the entry in register no. 19 Ex.PX1, acknowledgement of case acceptance at FSL Ex.PX2. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
43. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the entire evidence of the prosecution. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police. He stated that no knife was recovered from his possession. He had not quarreled with PW1 and PW2. He had not stabbed PW1. He has been falsely implicated by PW1 because he and PW1 had a friendship with a girl and PW1 had threatened him many times to stay away from her. He does not know how PW1 sustained injures but to take revenge from him he has falsely implicated the accused in the present matter. He had opted to lead evidence in defence and the case was fixed for DE.
44. On 11.03.2024, accused closed the DE without examining any witness and the case was fixed for final arguments.
45. I have heard the Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor, Ms. Usha Rani, Ld. LAC for accused and perused the record.
46. Ld. Chief PP for State had submitted that in this case prosecution has examined 14 witnesses to bring home the guilty of the accused. The injured Brijesh has been examined as PW1 SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 15 of 25 and eye witness Gaurav and Gagan have been examined as PW2 and PW3. All these three witnesses are consistent and they have supported and corroborated each other. All these witnesses have deposed that accused was standing on a rehri of Chowmin in Shukar Bazar, K Block, Vijay Vihar, Phase-2 when Brijesh along- with his friend Gaurav reached there on a motorcycle, accused started abusing Brijesh on seeing him and when PW1 Brijesh and his friend Gaurav objected to it, the accused started quarreling with Brijesh and in the meanwhile accused took a knife Ex.P2 from the shop of Chowmin and stabbed on the stomach of Brijesh.
47. Ld. Chief PP for State further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that it was injured who provoked the accused, rather it was the accused who started abusing injured and when he and his friend Gaurav objected to it, the accused started quarreling with them and stabbed PW1 Brijesh after lift- ing the knife from chowmin shop. Injured was taken to BSA Hospital on motorcycle driven by PW2 and this fact is also cor- roborated by PW2. In the hospital, the injured was examined and his MLC was prepared which is proved on record as Ex.PW4/A, his clothes were sealed and handed over to the IO. The injury was found to be grievous. The doctor found that there was in- cised wound on the right lower abdomen omentum exposed and the size of the injury is 5x1x1 cm. Ld. Chief PP for State submit- ted that all the three witnesses have stood through the test of cross examination. There is nothing on record to disbelieve them.
48. Ld. Chief PP for State submitted that the defence tried SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 16 of 25 to make out the case that they were having common girl friend and injured was having grudge against the accused and he falsely implicated the accused in the present case. Ld. Chief PP for State submitted that there is no such evidence which shows that injury was inflicted by some other person. There is also no reason as to why the injured implicated the accused in this case for letting the actual culprit go scott free. Ld. Chief PP submitted that the ac- cused also took the time to lead defence evidence to prove that there was an issue of girl involved but no such evidence has been come on record.
49. Ld Chief PP further submitted that all the three wit- nesses are consistent and corroborated with each other on all the material aspects. They have stood through the test of cross exam- ination and there is nothing on record to doubt about their verac- ity. The reliance on their testimony can be placed. In this case, accused was apprehended on the very next day of the commis- sion of offence. Prosecution, in order to prove the recovery of weapon of offence, examined three witnesses i.e. PW2, PW8 and PW13 and all these three witnesses are consistent that the ac- cused was apprehended from his house and he got recovered the knife Ex.P2 from his house. The recovered knife was the same knife by which the offence was committed. The public person was examined as PW2 who has corroborated the fact of recovery of weapon of offence. In this case, the opinion of doctor was taken with respect to the knife Ex.P2. Dr. Vijay Dhankar gave the opinion and proved the same as Ex.PW11/A and opined that the injury as mentioned in the MLC of injured Brijesh can be caused by the knife examined by him i.e. knife got recovered by SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 17 of 25 the accused.
50. Ld. Chief PP for State further submitted that in this case, the knife was also sent RFSL and DNA examination was conducted along with knife, clothes which the injured was wear- ing at the time of incident were also sent to RFSL. The blood was detected on all the four i.e. Baniyan, Shirt, T-shirt of PW1 and also the knife Ex.P2. The DNA profile was generated from all the exhibits. The DNA profile was generated from the blood found on the clothes of the injured tallied with the DNA profile generated blood found on the knife. This fact clearly shows that it is the same knife with which the injury was caused on the person of injured PW1 and that is why DNA profile of the injured was found on that knife.
51. Ld. Chief PP for State submitted that the knife has not been found at the spot but the accused got recovered from this knife from his house and public witness PW2 has also supported the fact of recovery of knife by the accused from his house. Ld. Chief PP for State submitted that the knife was deposited in the malkhana and the chain in this regard is complete. The entries in register no. 19 have been proved by examining PW10 who proved the entry in register No. 10 as Ex.PW10/A. Exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Manoj who took the case property vide RC Ex.PW10/C. The witness has specifically stated that till the case property remained in his possession nobody tampered with the same. Ct. Manoj has been examined as PW7. It was PW7 who deposited the case property in FSL and he also stated that till the case property remained in his possession nobody tampered SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 18 of 25 with the same. Ld. Chief PP for State had submitted that accused himself does not dispute the entry made in register no. 19 and ac- knowledgment of FSL Ex.PX1 and Ex.PX2. Ld. Chief PP for State submitted that from this prosecution is also able to prove that the case property was not tampered with.
52. Ld. Chief PP for State further submitted that so far as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, the injury has been caused by the sharp edge weapon i.e. knife on the lower ab- domen omentum was exposed and the doctor opined the nature of injury as grievous. Ld. Chief PP for State had submitted that a person stabbing in the abdomen has knowledge that stabbing the person with knife would cause death. Therefore, offence of at- tempt to murder is made out. Ld. Chief PP for State had submit- ted that the onus which was on the prosecution has been dis- charged and the guilty of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. It is prayed that accused be held guilty and convicted.
53. Ld. LAC for the accused submitted that this is the false and fabricated case. No such incident has taken place and the ac- cused has nothing to do with the offence. He has no quarrel with the injured and has not caused any injury on the person of injured Brijesh. Ld. LAC had submitted that infact Brijesh was having grudge against the accused as the accused was friendly with his girl friend and that is why injured falsely implicated the accused after sustaining injuries from somewhere.
54. Ld. LAC further submitted that the incident took place SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 19 of 25 at about 10:30 pm on 06.04.2013 but the FIR has been registered on 07.04.2018 that also at 10:30 AM i.e. after about 12 hours. There is no explanation as to why there is a delay of 12 hours in lodging the FIR. On this ground itself, accused is liable to be ac- quitted.
55. Ld. LAC further submitted that injured was knowing the accused prior to the incident as deposed by injured himself but injured or his friend or brother have not told this fact to the doctor and when called at 100 number was made. Ld. LAC fur- ther submitted that there is no public witness joined as admittedly the incident had taken place at crowded place i.e. at Shukar Bazar Road and many public persons gathered there. Ld. LAC further submitted that in this case, the accused has been falsely impli- cated. He was called to the police station and there all the pro- ceedings were completed and knife was planted upon him that is why no neighbour and public witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery of knife. Ld. LAC further submitted that recov- ery of knife is doubtful and the deposition of all three witnesses are not reliable. They have deposed falsely against the accused in connivance with PW1. It is prayed that onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged. Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is prayed that the benefit be given by the accused and he be acquit- ted.
56. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that in this case, the injured Brijesh was examined as PW1. The FIR was registered on the statement of PW1. He SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 20 of 25 has fully supported and corroborated his complaint and stated that on 06.04.2018, he along with his friend Gaurav, PW2 has gone to M2K for taking dinner and when they were returning on the motorcycle and reached at Sukhar Bazar Road, K Block, Vi- jay Vihar, Phase-2, they saw the accused standing at the Chowmin shop. The accused on seeing Brijesh started abusing him. Brijesh and his friend Gaurav tried to make him understand but he started fighting with them and in that fight accused brought the knife from the shop of Chowmin and stabbed PW1 in his abdomen. PW1 fell down on the road and started bleeding. This testimony of PW1 is supported and corroborated by PW2 who was with him. PW3 also supported and corroborated with the testimony PW1 and PW2. He stated that he was present at Shukar Bazar and he noticed the accused standing at the Chowmin shop. In the meanwhile, his cousin Brijesh alongwith his friend Gaurav and from there onwards PW3 corroborated the testimony of PW1 and PW2. After injury, the injured was re- moved to the hospital by Gaurav and Gagan on motorcycle and both are again consistent on this point. They are also consistent on the point that the motorcycle was driven by PW3 Gagan. Even in the MLC, it is mentioned that it was Gagan who brought the injured to the hospital.
57. The defence has taken plea that there is a delay of 12 hours in getting the FIR registered but it has already been ex- plained that injured was not fit for statement when the IO reached there and that is why his statement could not be recorded on that day and DD No. 122B was kept pending. It was only on the next day that doctor declared the injured fit and he recorded his state-
SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 21 of 25 ment and got the FIR registered. This testimony of PW8 and PW13 also get corroboration from PW2 who stated that when the police came injured was not fit to give statement and police recorded the statement of injured later on. PW1 also stated that police had come in the hospital but he could not give the state- ment. On the next morning, police came in the hospital and he gave statement Ex.PW1/A. This testimony of PW1, PW2, PW8 and PW13 fully explained the reason of delay in lodging the FIR and I do not find any fault with the same. Hence, in my opinion no benefit can be given to the accused on this ground.
58. The other defence taken is that the injured was knowing the accused but still he did not tell the name of injured to the doctor who prepared the MLC or even while making call at 100 number. I find that firstly there is no cross-examination on this point to PW1 as to whether he told the name of the accused to the doctor and if not, why ? There is no no cross-examination of the doctor who prepared the MLC as to whether he inquired the name of assailant from the injured in the absence of any such cross-examination, no benefit can be given to the accused. There is also no cross-examination of the witness who made cal t 100 number as to whether he hold the name of accused, while making call and if not why. Under the circumstances, I do not find that this argument is of any help to the accused.
59. The other defence taken is that as accused was also friendly with the girl friend of the injured that is why injured at- tacked the accused and accused only defended himself. Firstly, I found that there is no injury found on the person of accused. If he SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 22 of 25 was attacked then there should have been some injury on his per- son. Secondly, there is no such evidence brought on record that there was any such girl. Accused also took time to lead defence evidence but closed the evidence. Without examining any wit- ness. The accused should have examined some witness to sub- stantiate his defence or should have brought something in the cross-examination of witnesses to support his defence. In the ab- sence of any such evidence, I do nt find any merit in this con- tention of the defence.
60. It is also important to note here that all the three wit- nesses, i.e. PW1 and PW2 Gaurav and PW3 Gagan are consistent and they have corroborated each other. They all have stood through the test of cross examination. The defence has not been able to cause any dent in the testimony during the lengthy cross examination. Therefore, in my opinion, all the three witnesses are reliable and trustworthy.
61. The defence has argued that the injured has falsely implicated the accused and accused as also friendly with a Girl friend of the injured. This fact specifically being denied by PW1. He stated that he has no relation with that girl. He only knew her as she used to come at his shop. He denied the suggestion that he was angry with the accused due to that girl. Accused has also taken the plea that he has assaulted by injured and his 6-7 friends but there is no such evidence brought on record. Accused was apprehended on the very next day. There is no injury found on the person of accused. Therefore, I do not find any force in the argument that it was the injured who attacked the accused.
SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 23 of 25
62. In this case as mentioned above, the accused was ap- prehended on the next day, i.e. 07.04.2018. He got recovered the knife Ex.P2 from his house. Knife was shown to the doctor who examined the knife and also gone through the MLC of injured and opined that the injury on the body of the person as mentioned in the MLC can be caused by knife examined. Knife was also sent to FSL, the report in this regard has been proved as Ex.PW14/A. Alongwith knife, the clothes of the injured which he was wearing at the time of incident were also examined. The re- port is ExPW14/A. The DNA profile was generated from all the exhibits including knife which accused got recovered from his house. This report clearly shows that this is the same knife with which the injury on the person of complainant was inflicted and that is why the same DNA was found on the knife and on the clothes which injured was wearing at the time of incident.
63. The injury has been caused on the abdomen as the accused has stabbed PW1 with knife. The injury is found to be grievous. There cannot be any direct evidence with respect to in- tention and knowledge as the same is always locked in the mind of the accused. It has to be inferred from the facts and circum- stances of each case. In the present case, accused brought the knife from the Chowmin shop and gave knife blow in the ab- domen of the injured. From this fact, this intention can be in- ferred that he wanted to give fatal blow to the injured that is why he gave blow in the abdomen of a person is giving the knife blow in the abdomen, this knowledge can be inferred that by giv- ing knife blow in the abdomen, he will cause death. Therefore, SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 24 of 25 in my opinion, the accused was also having knowledge that by stabbing in abdomen, he would cause death.
64. In view of the above discussion and the fact that the in- jured has fully supported and corroborated the case, all the other witnesses have also supported the case. There is nothing on record that PW1, PW2, PW3 had any reason to falsely depose against the accused. Three witnesses, i.e. PW1, PW2, PW3 are consistent, reliable and trustworthy. They have stood through the test of cross examination. Defence has not been able to breach their veracity and hence, the reliance can be placed on their testi- mony. The accused has also got recovered knife from his home which is also found to be having same DNA as found on the clothes of the injured which were socked in blood and was wear- ing at the time of incident. The doctor who examined the knife and MLC gave the opinion that the injury found on the person of injured as mentioned can be inflicted by this knife. All this evi- dence clearly points towards the guilt of the accused. The onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged. There- fore, the accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence pun- ishable U/s 307 IPC.
Announced in the open court VIRENDER Digitally signed by VIRENDER th today i.e. 13 September, 2024 KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2024.09.13 BANSAL 17:28:38 +0530 (Virender Kumar Bansal) Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW) Rohini Courts, Delhi/13.09.2024 SC No. 410/18 State Vs. Mohinder Thapa Page No. 25 of 25