Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Sunil Kumar Etc-(3) on 6 June, 2025

        IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
  ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
         SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI




CNR No: DLSE010004992014
Session Case No.1433/2016
FIR No. 94 /2014
Police Station: Sunlight Colony

State


Versus


1. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini
Son of Ram Kishan Saini
Resident of House No. 511, Top Floor,
Sunlight Colony-II, Hari Nagar Ashram,
New Delhi-110014.

2. Bharat Bhushan (already acquitted)

3. Rinku Saini (already convicted)
                                                         ....... Accused persons



Date of Institution                    :       11.04.2014
Judgment reserved on                   :       05.06.2025
Date of Decision                       :       06.06.2025
FIR No.94 /2014   PS Sunlight Colony       State v. Sunil Kumar        Page 1 of 47
 JUDGMENT

1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offence under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Rinku Saini & Bharat Bhushan @ Guddu for having committed the said offence.

2. Vide Judgment dated 30.03.2024, the accused Bharat Bhushan has already been acquitted and accused Rinku Saini has already been convicted.

3. During trial of the present case, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, who was granted bail vide order dated 16.01.2021, never appeared in the Court and fled from justice and vide order dated 20.02.2023, he was declared a proclaimed offender.

4. On 23.01.2025, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was produced in the Court by Head Constable (HC) Sandeep Kumar of police station Sunlight Colony after his arrest on 22.01.2025.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 2 of 47

5. On 30.01.2025, a supplementary police report was put up by the state through officer-in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony pursuant to the arrest of the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini.

6. As per the supplementary police report, present case was registered in police station Sunlight colony on the complaint of Ms. Meeta Sharma against three accused persons including accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and that during the trial of the case the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini absconded and was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 20.02.2023 and PO Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was arrested by the staff of police station Sunlight Colony and was produced before Hon'ble Court from where he was sent to JC. It is further reported in supplementary police report that the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini committed further offence under section 174A IPC and hence supplementary chargesheet against him under section 307/34 IPC and 174A IPC has been prepared and submitted in the Court.

7. As per the main police report, on 14.02.2014, this case FIR was registered against the accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and others in police station Sunlight Colony for the offence punishable under sections 307 read with section 34 IPC.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 3 of 47

8. As per the police report, on 14.02.2014, during night emergency duty, on receiving of DD no.28A, Assistant Sub- Inspector (ASI) Jawahar Lal along with Constable (Ct.) Vikram Singh reached at House no. 576, Sunlight Colony-II and found the doors to be locked; that on inquiry, they came to know that Vijay Kumar Sharma was injured in a quarrel and his wife had taken him to Jeevan Nursing Home by PCR Van, so, they reached there; that the doctor informed him that the injured had been taken to AIIMS Trauma Center by CATS ambulance.

9. It is further reported in the police report that thereafter, Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal along with Constable Vikram Singh reached Trauma Center, AIIMS and found that vide MLC no. 412200/14, the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was admitted and his wife Meeta Sharma was also present there and on the MLC, the doctor notes, "alleged H/o assault visible injuries stab 1.5 cm by 0.3 (depth could not be assessed over the left side of abdomen)". It is further reported in the police report that Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal made an application to the doctor for recording the statement of the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma and on that application the doctor declared the injured to be "unfit for statement" and thereafter, he recorded statement of the witness/complainant Smt. Meeta Sharma, wife of Vijay Kumar Sharma (injured).

10. As per the police report, it is, inter-alia, stated by Smt. Meeta Sharma that in the night at about 01:30/01:45 AM, FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 4 of 47 she along with her husband was watching the T.V. and they heard abuses and sound of quarrel of some boys on the road below; that she had also seen and her husband went down to near those boys and it was drizzling; that my husband was trying to pacify that and in the meantime, heavy rain started so she went inside; that thereafter, her husband also came in and found that her stomach was bleeding and there were injuries on his face also.

11. It is further stated by the complainant that on her inquiry, he told that there were 3-4 boys, one of them was Sunil son of Ram Kishor, resident of House No. 511, S.L. Colony-II, and those boys gave him kicks, fist blows and slapping and caught hold him, thereafter, Sunil B.C. stabbed in his abdomen with the knife; that she had cleaned the wound with the Dettol and dialed 100 number to the police and took her husband to Jeevan Hospital by PCR and from there to Trauma Center, AIIMS by ambulance and got him admitted where her husband was under treatment. It is further stated by Smt. Meeta Sharma that Sunil and his accomplices have beaten her husband and caused stabbing injury by knife, therefore, appropriate action as per law be taken against them.

12. It is further reported in the police report that duty Constable Kishan Ram had handed over sealed 'pullanda' of blood-stained clothes of the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma and sample seal to Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal which were seized vide Seizure memo and taken into police custody.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 5 of 47

13. It is further reported in the police report that after obtaining MLC and the statement, Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal along with Constable Vikram came back to the spot of incident but due to the continuous rain, nothing was found on the spot.

14. It is further reported in the police report that from the statement of the complainant, the MLC and physical investigation of the injured as well as the inspection of the spot, an offence under section 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code was found to have been committed and after making endorsement on the statement of Smt. Meeta Sharma and preparing 'Tehrir', Assistant Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal got the FIR registered by sending Constable Vikram and further investigation was taken up by himself.

15. It is further reported in the police report that during investigation, site plan was prepared and the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was arrested in the present case and his discloser statement was recorded and at the instance of the accused, weapon of offence, the knife was recovered and seized vide Seizure Memo and co-accused persons was searched for and statement of the witnesses recorded and the case property was seized, sealed and kept in 'Malkhana'.

16. It is further reported in the police report that on 17.02.2014, the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was declared fit for FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 6 of 47 statement by the doctor at Trauma Center, AIIMS and he got his statement recorded.

17. As per the police report, it is, inter-alia, stated by the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma that on 14.12.2014 at about 01:30- 01:45 a.m., his neighbours, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini (B.C.) son of Ram Kishan, Rinku son of Suresh Saini and Bal Bhushan @ Guddu son of Tej Singh @ Bhabhadh had beaten him with kicks, fists and slapping and when he tried to run away from there to save himself, Sunil had stabbed him in the left side of his stomach; that he raised alarm and his wife Meeta Sharma came there and took him to the hospital.

18. It is further reported that on 09.03.2014, the accused persons, namely, Rinku Saini and Bharat Bhushan were arrested at the instance of the victim and separate discloser statement of both the accused persons were recorded and pointing out memo of the spot of incident was also prepared and statement of the witnesses were recorded and the accused persons were sent to judicial custody.

19. It is further reported in the police report that on 10.03.2014, result of MLC of the injured was obtained and the doctor had opined the injury to be grievous; that on 14.03.2014, blood sample of the victim was obtained and kept in the 'Malkhana' vide Memo.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 7 of 47

20. It is further reported in the police report that on 22.03.2014, subsequent opinion regarding the cause of injury was obtained from Forensic Medicine Department, Trauma Center, AIIMS. It is further reported that all the 'pullandas' were sent to the FSL Rohini, Delhi and its result would be produced in the Court after receiving it.

21. It is further reported in the police report that the afore-said acts on the part of accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Rinku Saini and Bharat Bhushan revealed commission of offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences committed by accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Rinku Saini and Bharat Bhushan may be taken and they should be tried as per the provisions of law.

22. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.

23. On receiving of the police report, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had issued production warrants against the accused persons on 14.02.2014.

24. On 28.04.2014, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence and copies of police report FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 8 of 47 and other documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused persons.

25. On 09.05.2014, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, committed the case to the Court of session.

26. On 27.10.2014, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused persons for their having committed offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

27. The charge was read over and explained to the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and he was asked if he pleaded guilty of the offence charged or claimed to be tried. The accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

28. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma (injured), PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma (complainant/wife of injured), PW3 Constable (Ct.) Vikram Singh, PW4 Constable (Ct.) Hari Kishan, PW5 Constable (Ct.) Ankit, PW6 Head Constable (HC) Kishan Ram, PW7 Head Constable (HC) Anil Kumar, PW8 Sub-Inspector (SI) (Retired) Jawahar Lal. During the examination of the prosecution FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 9 of 47 witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/DA , Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B; and 'Pullanda' Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3 were also tendered in evidence.

29. Regarding the supplementary police report qua the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, two more witnesses, namely, PW9 Head Constable (HC) Sandeep Kumar and PW10 Sub-Inspector (SI) Arun Kumar have been examined and during their testimonies, the documents Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D were also tendered in evidence.

30. On 28.05.2025, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C and for his statement.

31. On 31.05.2025, this Court examined the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his statement was recorded. During his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. During his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused took the defence that he is innocent and FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 10 of 47 that he was not there at the spot on the day of incident. It is further stated by the accused that victim was a lawyer and resides in front of his house and he, by mistake, caught him as one of the offenders and the police framed him falsely in the present case. The accused expressed his desire not to lead any evidence in his defence.

32. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Hena Shah, Amicus Curiae for the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

33. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh, PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan, PW5 Ct. Ankit, PW6 HC Kishan Ram, PW7 HC Anil Kumar, PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar and PW10 SI Arun Kumar and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D; and ''Pullanda'' Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini along with his two associates, whose trial has already been FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 11 of 47 completed, was creating ruckus in front of the house of the injured and while the injured was trying to pacify them, one of his associates caught hold of injured and the another associate gave fists blows to the injured and the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini stabbed him. It is further submitted that nature of injury is grievous caused on the vital part of the body i.e. abdomen and the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini is liable for the offence of Attempt to Murder and the weapon used in the commisson of the offence is a knife, which is a deadly weapon. It is further submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement of the injured and his testimonies find corroboration from the history given while recording MLC and also find corroboration from the statement of his wife Smt. Meeta Sharma. It is further submitted that after receiving injuries, the injured immediately went to his house and told his wife that Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and his associates have assaulted him and the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini stabbed him. It is further submitted that the testimonies of the injured are also corroborated from the recovery of his blood-stained clothes. It is further submitted that the injured remained hospitalized for a week and after discharge, the injured named all the accused persons and there is no material contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that use of knife by the accused is also corroborated by the subsequent opinion obtained by the investigating officer wherein it is opined that the injuries could be possible by the knife recovered at the instance of accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini from his house. It is further FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 12 of 47 submitted that plea of alibi is the toughest plea and must be proved by clinching and unimpeachable evidence and accused has failed to prove that. It is further submitted that during trial, accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini absconded after being released on bail on 16.01.2021 and therefore, vide order dated 03.11.2022, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued against him. It is further submitted that PW10 SI Arun Kumar duly executed the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. on 08.12.2022 and thereafter, vide order dated 20.02.2023, accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was declared a proclaimed offender and on 22.01.2025, he was arrested by PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar and therefore, the accused is further liable to be convicted under section 174A IPC.

34. Per contra, learned amicus curiae for the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh, PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan, PW5 Ct. Ankit, PW6 HC Kishan Ram, PW7 HC Anil Kumar, PW8 SI (Rtd.) Jawahar Lal, PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar and PW10 SI Arun Kumar and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/DA , Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D; and FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 13 of 47 ''Pullanda'' Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, and submitted that there are multiple contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the Constable did not collect any document from Jeevan Nursing Home.

35. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.

36. The accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and his two associates have been charged for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. Sections 307 and 34 read as follows:

"307. Attempt to murder.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is 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."
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 14 of 47 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."

37. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.

38. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined ten (10) witnesses.

39. PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma is the injured who deposed that on the intervening night of 13-14.02.14 at about 1.40-1.45, while he and his wife Smt. Meeta Sharma were watching T.V., he had heard the sound of quarreling and abusing near their house and when he had seen from his balcony, he found that there were 4-5 guys, who were shouting and abusing each other. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that he had requested them to go to their homes as it is quite night and let them sleep and he had gone inside but shouting was continuing. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that he had come down and those guys were Sunil, Rinku and Bharat Bhushan, who were very well known to him as they were living in front of his house.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 15 of 47

40. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that on his intervening they said " Tere baap ka ilaqa hai, maaro sale ko iski vakalat nikalo" and suddenly, Rinku caught him and Bharat Bhushan gave a fist blow on his face. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that there was very less light because of the raining and he fell down and they started kicking and blowing when he was down. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that when he had tried to escape from there, Sunil son of Ram Kishan had drawn a knife and stabbed in the left side of his abdomen and he was surprised because they were his neighbours. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that earlier also they used to do the same things but being a neighbour, he had never done anything.

41. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that he had fled from there he had thought it was superficial injury and he had told his wife that he had been stabbed by Sunil. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that his wife had given him Dettol and when he washed his wound, there was a lot of bleeding and he had immediately come to know that was not a superficial injury and it was an internal rupture. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that he had told his wife that he needed immediate medical attention in nearby hospital, since things were very critical due to internal injury. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that his wife had called 100 number PCR and he had gone to nearby hospital i.e. Jeevan Nursing Home but no efficient doctor was available at that time.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 16 of 47

It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that he had again told his wife to call for Ambulance and he was taken to Trauma Center. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that doctor had examined his condition and told that it was a major bleeding and he had started loosing his sense and soon lost his consciousness. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that he had got a major operation and regained consciousness on 17.02.2014. It is further deposed by PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma that on 17.02.2014 afternoon, the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Jawahar Singh had come and recorded his statement.

42. PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma has correctly identified the accused Sunil in the Court.

43. During his examination-in-chief, one sealed 'pullanda' duly sealed with the seal of FSL bearing the particulars of this case was produced by the MHC(M) and same was opened from which one white color 'baniyan' (Ex. P-1) and one brown color woolen upper (Ex. P-2) and one pajama (blood- stained) (Ex. P-30) was taken out and shown to PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma who had correctly identified the same.

44. During his cross-examination, PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma has, inter-alia, deposed that it was three storey house and three brothers are living on the three floors with their families and mother and father were also living with them. PW1 Vijay FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 17 of 47 Kumar Sharma further deposed that there was a big road in front of his house which was around 40 feet wide and across the road, it is also residential area and that road move on one side towards Shalimar Cinema and opposite side towards Ashram Chowk and it is busy road. PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma has further deposed that vide DD no. 28A on 14.04.2014 it was written that the caller had said that her husband was not well (lady ke husband ki tabiyat kharab hai). PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma has further deposed that the name of the assailants have not been given in the DD number 28A dated 14.02.2014. PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma has further deposed that he had not named the assailants to the doctor when he prepared the MLC no. 412200 dated 14.02.2014 in AIIMS Trauma Centre.

45. PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma is the complainant and wife of the injured who has deposed that they were staying at the second floor of the premises. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that on the intervening night of 13/14.02.2014 at about 1.3-1.45a.m., she along with her husband, Vijay Kumar Sharma was watching TV at their home. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that few boys were using abusive language and were quarreling in the gali. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that she had seen from upstairs whereas her husband had gone downstairs and asked them not to abuse and quarrel. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that it was raining and when the rain became heavy, she had gone inside. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that after FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 18 of 47 about 5-7 minutes her husband had come back and was bleeding from the mouth and was heavily bleeding from the stomach and she had inquired as to what happened.

46. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that she had cleaned the wound of her husband and then called at 100 number. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that her husband had told her that four five boys were quarreling in the street and one boy out of them, namely, Sunil had stabbed him and his associates had beaten him by fist and kick blows. It is further deposed by PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma that after arrival of the PCR, her husband was taken to the Jeevan Hospital and from Jeevan Hospital, she had dialed 102 and called the ambulance and they had gone to AIIMS Trauma Center. All the three accused persons present in the Court were correctly identified by the witness (PW2).

47. During her cross-examination, PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma deposed that her house consists of ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor and her brother-in-law used to reside at ground and third floor and they used to live on second and first floor of the said house. PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma further deposed that there was residential area nearby her house and people were living there and in front of her house there was a road and after the end of the road there was residential area and one side of the road leads to Shalimar Cinema and other side of the road leads to Aashram and that road was also busy one. PW2 FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 19 of 47 Ms. Meeta Sharma has further deposed that her husband told the name of Sunil and presence of other four to five persons to her. PW2 Ms. Meeta Sharma further deposed that she had not seen the person who had inflicted injuries to her husband and she came to know about the injury of her husband when her husband told the same and she had not seen accused persons, Bharat Bhushan and Rinku beating or quarreling with her husband. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

48. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has deposed that on the intervening night of 13/14.02.2014, he was posted as Constable at police station Sunlight Colony and was on emergency duty from 08.00 a.m. to 08.00 p.m. with ASI Jawahar Lal and on that day upon receipt of DD no. 28A, he along with the investigating officer reached at House no. 576, Sunlight Colony-II where they had come to know that the injured had been taken to Jeevan Nursing Home. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that they had gone to Jeevan Nursing Home where they were informed that the injured had been moved to Trauma Center, AIIMS by CATS ambulance and they had gone to Trauma Center where the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was found admitted and was 'unfit for statement' and his wife Ms. Meeta Sharma was also present there. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that the investigating officer had recorded her statement, prepared 'rukka' and handed over same to him for registration of case. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that after FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 20 of 47 registration of the case, he had come back at spot and handed over the 'rukka' and copy of FIR to the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that they had made efforts to locate the accused Sunil and had gone to his house i.e. House no.511, Sunlight Colony where his father had informed that he had gone to Adarsh Nagar. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that thereafter, in search of the accused persons, they had gone towards 'Khatta' where the accused persons, Sunil and Bharat Bhushan were seen and on seeing the police party, they had tried to flee, however, they were chased and apprehended. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that the investigating officer had interrogated both of them and the accused Bharat Bhushan had told that he was not accompanying the accused Sunil at the time of incident so they had let him go, however, the accused Sunil (present in the Court that day) was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/A) and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo (Ex.PW3/B) bearing his signature at point A.

49. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that during the course of investigation, the accused Sunil had made disclosure vide statement (Ex.PW3/C) bearing his signature at point A and in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the accused Sunil had led them to the place of occurrence and pointed out the spot vide memo (Ex.PW3/D) bearing his signature at point A and also led them to his house No.511, Sunlight Colony-II where from the roof of the top floor, the accused Sunil got recovered a FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 21 of 47 kitchen knife. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that the investigating officer had prepared the sketch of the knife (Ex.PW3/E). It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that the investigating officer had prepared the pullanda of the knife and sealed the same with the seal of 'JL' and had taken into possession the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/F) bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW3 Ct. Vikarm Singh that Constable Kishan Ram had handed over pullanda of bloodstained clothes and sample seal to him and investigating officer had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/G) bearing his signature at point A.

50. During his cross-examination, PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has deposed that they had reached at the spot within 10-15 minutes and it was raining, however 3-4 public persons were present at the spot. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has further deposed that the pullanda was given to him before he left the hospital for going to spot. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has further deposed that they left for the house of the accused Sunil soon after handing over of copy of the FIR to the investigating officer as the house of the accused was near to the spot of incident and the father of accused met him there. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has further deposed that no photographs were taken by the investigating officer. PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh has further deposed that the investigating officer did not call any public person to join the recovery proceedings. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 22 of 47

51. PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit had accompanied the investigating officer ASI Jawahar Lal and in search of the accused persons, Rinku Saini and Bharat Bhushan to arrest them and their testimonies are almost similar. It is commonly deposed by PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that they had joined the investigation along with ASI Jawahar Lal in the search of the accused persons, namely, Rinku and Bharat Bhushan at their houses. It is further commonly deposed by PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that at that time, one secret informer and the complainant had also accompanied them and at the instance of the secret informer, they had apprehended both the accused persons, Rinku and Bharat Bhushan from house no.501 and the complainant had identified both the accused persons and they were arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B) bearing their signatures at point B & C and personal search memo (Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D) of the accused persons were bearing their signatures at points B & C. PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit have correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court. It is further commonly deposed by PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that the investigating officer had also recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused persons vide (Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B) bearing their signatures at point A & B. It is further commonly deposed by PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that thereafter, they had taken both the accused persons to the police station and on the direction of the investigating officer, they had taken the accused persons, Rinku and Bharat Bhushan for their medical FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 23 of 47 examination. It is further commonly deposed by PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit that the investigating officer had recorded their statements.

52. During their cross-examination, PW4 Ct. Hari Kishan and PW5 Ct. Ankit have, inter-alia, commonly deposed that the investigating officer had made their departure entry in Roznamcha and before personal search of the accused, they did not offer him their personal search. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.

53. PW6 HC Kishan Ram has deposed that on 14.02.2014, he was posted at police station Safdarjung Enclave and on that day, he was deputed at Trauma Center, AIIMS as Duty Constable from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 a.m. next day i.e. 15.02.2014. It is further deposed by PW6 HC Kishan Ram that on that day at about 09:00 p.m., the injured Vijay Kumar was admitted in the hospital who was brought from police station Sunlight Colony and after medical examination, the doctor handed over him two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of CMO, Trauma Center, AIIMS and sample seal. It is further deposed by PW6 HC that he handed over the same to the investigating officer ASI Jawahar Lal, who had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/G) which bears his signature at point 'B'.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 24 of 47

54. PW7 HC Anil Kumar has deposed that on 25.03.2014, he was posted as Constable at Sarai Kale Khan Chowki and on that day, he had received three sealed envelopes from MHC(M) vide RC No.46/21/14 and he had deposited the sealed envelopes in FSL, Rohini vide Receipt No. FSL-2014. It is further deposed by PW7 HC Anil Kumar that he had come back at Police Station and handed over the receipt to MHC(M). It is further deposed by PW7 HC Anil Kumar that the seal of the parcels had remained intact until they remained in his possession and no tampering with the seal was done. It is further deposed by PW7 HC Anil Kumar that the investigating officer had recorded his statement on the same day. This witness was not cross- examined by the defence counsel.

55. PW8 SI (Retired) Jawahar Lal has deposed that in the intervening night of 13/14.02.2014, he was posted at police station Sunlight Colony as ASI and was on emergency duty from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that at about 02:12 a.m., upon receiving of DD No.28A about a person being unwell at House no.576, Sunlight Colony-II, he along with Ct. Vikram had reached the spot and the house was found locked and upon inquiry, it was revealed that a person was stabbed and was taken to Jewan Nursing Home, Sunlight Colony. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that when he had reached Jeewan Nursing home, he was informed that the patient had already been shifted to Trauma Center in a CATS ambulance. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that when he had FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 25 of 47 reached Trauma Center, he had met the injured Vijay Pal Sharma and his wife Smt. Meeta Sharma and injured was admitted vide MLC No.412200/2014 and the doctor had opined him to be 'unfit for statement'.

56. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that his wife Smt. Meeta Sharma had told him that at the time of incident, she along with her husband was watching TV in their house at about 01:30-01:45 a.m., when they had heard some screams and abuses at the ground floor, her husband had gone downstairs to stop the people from abusing and making noise at such late hours and she herself had come in the balcony to see as to who was making noise and there she had seen the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini along with 2-3 other boys creating a ruckus, thereafter, she had come inside her house. It is further deposed by PW8 Sub Jawahar Lal that later on, her husband told her that when he had asked those boys to stop making noise, he was beaten by the accused persons, Rinku and Bharat Bhushan by fists and kicks due to which he had fallen down on the ground and when he had stood up, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini had stabbed him in his abdomen on the left side.

57. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he had recorded her statement (Ex.PW8/A) and thereafter, all of them had reached at the spot where he had prepared 'rukka' (Ex.PW8/B) and handed over it to Ct. Vikram for registration of FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 26 of 47 FIR, who had gone to police station and returned with the copy of FIR and original 'rukka'.

58. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that the Duty Head Constable at Trauma Center had handed over him one 'pullanda' containing bloodstained clothes of injured along with one sample seal and said 'pullanda' was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PW3/G).

59. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that thereafter, he had made inquiries about the incident in the neighbourhood. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he had prepared site-plan (Ex.PW8/C) at the instance of Smt. Meeta.

60. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that thereafter, search for the accused Sunil was made and after sometime, the accused was arrested from a 'khatta' near Sunlight Colony vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/A) and conducted his personal search vide memo (Ex.PW3/B) and he also recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW3/C). It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that the accused Sunil had led them and pointed the spot of incident and he had prepared memo (Ex.PW3/D). It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that pursuant to disclosure statement, the accused Sunil was taken them to the roof of his house at House No.511, Second Floor, from where the accused Sunil had got recovered one knife from the roof of his FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 27 of 47 house. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he had duly measured the knife and prepared its sketch map (Ex.PW8/D), thereafter, he had seized the knife found at the instance of the accused after duly sealing the same with the help of white cloth pullanda with the seal of 'JL' vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/F).

61. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that the accused Sunil was got medically examined and was later on produced in the Court from where he was got sent to judicial custody and he duly deposited the case property with MHC(M).

62. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that on 17.02.2014, he had again visited the hospital when injured was declared 'fit for statement' and he had recorded his statement in which he had leveled allegations against all the three accused persons including the accused Sunil.

63. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he collected the final report on MLC of the injured where the nature of injury was opined as 'grievous' caused by 'sharp' weapon.

64. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that he had also obtained subsequent opinion from Trauma Center regarding the said injury having been caused by the said knife. It is further deposed by PW8 SI Jawahar Lal that doctors had answered in affirmation and blood sample of injured was FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 28 of 47 collected and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW8/E) and was sent to FSL along with seized knife and after examining other witnesses, he had prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the Court. PW8 SI Jawahar Lal has correctly identified the accused Sunil in the Court and has also correctly identified the knife (Ex.P4) stating that the same was recovered from the house at his instance.

65. PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 22.01.2025, he was posted as HC at police station Sunlight Colony, Delhi and on that day, HC Avadesh of PO Cell of the South-East District had apprehended the accused Sunil Kumar who was PO in the present case FIR vide order dated 20.02.2023 from Faridabad and handed over his custody to him. It is further deposed by PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar that after due interrogation, he had arrested the accused Sunil Kumar son of Ram Kishan Saini in the present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW9/A) bearing his signature at point A and conducted personal search of the accused vide (Ex.PW9/B) bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar that he had got the accused medically examined in Lok Nayak hospital and on the next day, accused was produced in the Court. It is further deposed by PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar that he also collected the previous conviction/involvement report (Ex.PW9/C) qua the accused Sunil Kumar. It is further deposed by PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar that he had prepared supplementary charge-sheet against the accused Sunil Kumar Saini and submitted in the Court.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 29 of 47

66. PW10 SI Arun Kumar has deposed that on 08.12.2022, he was posted as SI at police station Sunlight Colony and on that day for the purpose of execution of proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. qua the accused Sunil Kumar son of Ram Kishan resident of H.No.511, Top Floor, Sunlight Colony II, New Delhi, he had gone to given address of the accused where he had met Puneet Saini (cousin) and Mrs. Bhagwati (aunt) of the accused Sunil Kumar, who told that earlier the accused used to reside there but for last 1-1.5 years, the accused had not visited his house and they were not knowing about his present whereabouts and he had recorded their statements (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B) both bearing his signature at point A, respectively. It is further deposed by PW10 SI Arun Kumar that thereafter, he had affixed/pasted the copy of proclamation on the house of the accused and had taken its photographs (Ex.PW10/C) and had also got announcement of the proclamation done near the house of the accused Sunil Kumar and in his locality, but despite his efforts, the whereabouts of the accused Sunil Kumar could not be known.

67. It is further deposed by PW10 SI Arun Kumar that he had gone to Saket Court where he had pasted copy of proclamation on the notice board of the concerned Court. It is further deposed by PW10 SI Arun Kumar that his detailed report regarding execution of process is Ex.PW10/D bearing his signature at point A. FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 30 of 47

68. PW8 Sub-Inspector Jawahar Lal and PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar have correctly identified the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini in the Court.

69. It is important to note here that when the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence, the accused Sunil was granted bail and from 08.09.2021, he started absenting himself and thereafter, never appeared in the Court, and after issuing Non- Bailable Warrants and processes under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 20.02.2023, he was declared proclaimed offender.

70. It is also important to note here that during prosecution evidence, on 28.05.2025, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has made statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced as under: -

I have consulted with my lawyer. I am not disputing the genuineness of the following documents-
1. MLC bearing No. 414200/14 dated 14.12.2014 (Ex. Al).
2. Subsequent opinion No. 239 (Ex. A2).
3. DD No. 28A dated 14.12.2014 (Ex. A3).
4. FIR No. 94/14 PS Sunlight Colony (Ex. A4).
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 31 of 47
5. Report of FSL No.2014/B-2079, BIO No.257/14 dated 29.04.2015 including the serological chart prepared by Dr. Seema Nain (Ex.A-5).

71. The above-mentioned documents will be read in evidence as per section 294 Cr.P.C.

72. In the light of the charge framed against accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and the arguments advanced before the Court, following point for determination is framed:

1. Whether the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini in furtherance of the common intention with his associates, has done any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder, and have caused grievous hurt to the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma by such act.
2. Whether the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has failed to appear in the Court within the specified time as required by the proclamation.

DISCUSSION ON THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION

73. On this point, to prove the commission of offence by the accused, the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 32 of 47 Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct.Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal are relevant.

74. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma and PW2 Meeta Sharma, on 13-14.02.2014 at about 01:40/01:45 a.m., on hearing the noise, Vijay Kumar Sharma (PW1) had gone down the street. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, when he was trying to pacify the accused persons, namely, Sunil, Bharat Bhushan and Rinku Saini, he was beaten by all the three accused persons and when he had tried to save himself from them, the accused Sunil stabbed in left side of his abdomen. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma and PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, when the injured had come back, they noticed a lot of bleeding and his wife (PW2) made a 100 number call and had taken him to the nearby hospital by PCR Van and from there to Trauma Center, AIIMS by CATS ambulance.

75. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, due to heavy bleeding he had lost consciousness and undergone a major operation and regained consciousness on 17.02.2014, on that day, the investigating officer recorded his statement.

76. As per the testimonies of PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, when her husband had come back to their home, he was bleeding from the mouth and heavily bleeding from his abdomen and when she had inquired from her husband, who had told that Sunil FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 33 of 47 had stabbed him and his associates had beaten him with fists and kick blows.

77. PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, wife of the complainant/injured was the first person to whom the injured had narrated the incident and her testimonies have much relevance, even if she was not an eye-witness to the incident.

78. Regarding registration of this case, the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal are relevant.

79. As per the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, they both were on emergency duty on 13/14.02.2014 from 08:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m., at police station Sunlight Colony. As per the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, on receipt of DD No.28A, they had gone to the spot at House no.576, Sunlight Colony-II which house was found locked and on inquiry, they came to know that a person was stabbed and the injured was taken to Jeevan Nursing Home and on reaching there they further came to know that the patient had been shifted to Trauma Center AIIMS in a CATS ambulance where the injured was admitted vide MLC no.412200/2014 and he was opined 'unfit for statement'. As per the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, wife of the injured Smt. Meeta Sharma was present there and her statement was recorded and the investigating officer prepared FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 34 of 47 the 'rukka' and got the FIR registered through Ct. Vikram Singh (PW3).

80. Even otherwise, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has made statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., whereby, he has stated that he had consulted with his lawyer and he is not disputing the genuineness of DD No.28A dated 14.12.2014 (Ex.A3) and FIR No.94/14 (Ex.A4) police station Sunlight Colony.

81. From the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal and the statement of the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini under section 294 Cr.P.C., the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.

82. For proving the injuries caused to the person of the injured, the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal are relevant.

83. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, when the injured (PW1) was trying to pacify the accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Bharat Bhushan and Rinku Saini who were making noise to the street in front of the house of the injured, they uttered, " tere baap ka ilaqua hai, maro sale ko, iski vakalat nikalo " and suddenly, FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 35 of 47 Rinku caught hold of him and Bharat Bhushan gave a fist blow on his face; it was raining at the time and the light was very less; he fell down and they started kicking and blowing him and when he tried to save himself from them, the accused Sunil son of Ram Kishor drew a knife and stabbed on the left side of his abdomen.

84. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma and PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, when the injured had come back to his house, they noticed that the injured was bleeding heavily, so his wife (PW2) had called the police and had taken the injured to nearby hospital by PCR van and from there to Trauma Center, AIIMS by CATS Ambulance. As per the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, the injured remained admitted to hospital and on 17.02.2014, he was declared 'fit for statement' and his statement was recorded in which the injured had leveled allegations against all the three accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, Bharat Bhushan and Rinku Saini.

85. As per the testimonies of PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, he had collected MLC of the injured wherein the nature of injury was opined as 'grievous' caused by 'sharp' weapon and he had obtained subsequent opinion from the Trauma Center regarding the said injury having been caused by the said knife and the doctor had answered in affirmation.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 36 of 47

86. Even otherwise, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has admitted MLC (Ex.A1) and subsequent opinion (Ex.A2) in his statement under section 294 Cr.P.C.

87. In the instant case, the injured has given the true account of incident/injuries caused to his person in his evidence. The MLC of the injured (Ex.A2) has also been proved by the investigating officer, SI Jawahar Lal. It is not the case of the accused persons that there is any tampering with MLC. Even otherwise, the accused has admitted the genuineness of the MLC (Ex. A2) of the injured, Vijay Kumar Sharma and the subsequent opinion number 239 (Ex.A2) during his statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., therefore, the above-said documents can be read in evidence as the accused has not disputed the genuineness of these documents. During the course of arguments also, the contents of MLC have not been challenged on behalf of the accused.

88. As per the MLC (Ex.A2) of the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma, the nature of injury on his person was opined as 'grievous' and the kind of weapon used to cause the injury was opined as 'sharp'.

89. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies has remained consistent to prove the fact of causing 'grievous' injury by the FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 37 of 47 accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini on the person of the injured, Vijay Kumar Sharma by a sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife.

90. Regarding trustworthiness of the injured eye- witness, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yogender Singh v. State, Criminal Appeal number 265/2001, as follows:

"28. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind.
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of an injured witness is always of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(d) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(e) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."

91. There is one eye-witness of the incident, namely, Vijay Kumar Sharma (the injured), who has given his ocular FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 38 of 47 account of this case. The injured did not have animus or grudge against the accused. The manner of the incident as described by them is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows the presence of injury of the dimension of 1.5 x 0.3 cm (depth could not be assessed) over the left side of abdomen of the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma, attributable to a sharp object. There is another injury on the eyes of the injured.

92. Further, the accused has not been able to spell out any plausible reason for his false implications.

93. Furthermore, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has not led any evidence in his defence.

94. From the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma(injured), PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma (complainant), PW8 SI Jawahar Lal and in the light of statement of the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini recorded under section 294 Cr.P.C., thereby, admitting the genuineness of the MLC, subsequent opinion and FSL report regarding the 'pullanda' (Ex.PW3/G) of the clothes which the injured was wearing at the time of incident, the MLC and the nature of injury caused to the person of the injured have been duly proved.

95. Regarding arrest and identification of the accused, the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Smt. Meeta FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 39 of 47 Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram, PW4 Ct. Harikishan, PW5 Ct. Ankit and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal are relevant.

96. As per the testimonies of PW3 Ct. Vikram and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was arrested from the road, near khatta, DDA Flats, Sunlight Colony Part II, New Delhi on 14.02.2014 vide arrest memo (Ex.PW3/A) and his personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW3/B) and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW3/C) was recorded.

97. As per the testimonies of PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini also identified the spot vide identification memo (Ex.PW3/D).

98. Regarding recovery of the weapon of the offence, as per the testimonies of PW8 SI Jawahar Lal at the instance of the accused Sunil, weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from his house which was taken into police custody vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/F).

99. Regarding identification of the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram Singh and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal are relevant.

100. The injured, Vijay Kumar Sharma has correctly identified accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini to be the person, FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 40 of 47 who along with his associates had given beatings with kick and fist blows to his person, during the incident and who had stabbed him in his abdomen with a knife. PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, wife of the injured has also identified the accused in the Court. The accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has also been correctly identified by the police witnesses (PW3 and PW8) who were part of the raiding party which arrested the accused.

101. In the light of the testimonies of PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW2 Smt. Meeta Sharma, PW3 Ct. Vikram and PW8 SI Jawahar Lal, identification of the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini as the offender who had caused stab injury by a knife to the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma is duly established and proved.

102. For the purpose of constituting an attempt under section 307 IPC, the prosecution needs to establish the following two ingredients, namely: -

(i) An evil intent or knowledge
(ii) An act done

103. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case entitled S.K. Khaja v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715 as follows:

"8.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State, merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant -Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 41 of 47 offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with overt act committed by the appellant /accused. In the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the appellant/accused had tried to assault the complainant- Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) with Gupti and too on his head. Though the complainant received injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the applicant/accused would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. There being no infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed."

104. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. K. Khaja's case (supra), the law is well settled that for conviction for the offence under section 307 of the IPC, what is important is an intention coupled with an overt act by the accused; while grievous or life threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under section 307 of IPC, the intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from the surrounding circumstances.

105. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been successful in proving that the three offenders had beaten the injured with kicks, fist blows, even when he had fallen down and when the injured had tried to save himself from the offenders, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini stabbed him with knife in his abdomen on the left side.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 42 of 47

106. In the facts and circumstances and the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini and his co-accused persons, in furtherance the common intention of them all, had given beatings to the injured by fists & kicks and the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini had actually caused injury to the person of Vijay Kumar Sharma by giving knife blow on the vital part of the body of the injured i.e. in his abdomen. The intention of the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini from the said act appears to be very much clear that he was prepared to go to any extent while causing injuries to the injured and not only this, they in furtherance of their such common intention committed overt act of inflicting 'grievous' injuries to the vital part of person of injured Vijay Kumar Sharma.

107. As per the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution duly corroborated with MLC of the injured, when the investigating officer of his case had gone to AIIMS Trauma Center, where the injured was admitted for the treatment, the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was found to 'unfit for statement' and he underwent a major operation and regained his consciousness on 17.02.2014. The injury caused to the person of the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma was 'grievous' in nature. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has done such act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 43 of 47 caused death, he would be guilty of murder, and he had actually caused 'grievous' injury to the injured Vijay Kumar Sharma by such act.

108. The weapon of the offence used by the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini was knife. As per the subsequent opinion (Ex.A2), the doctor of Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, JPNA Trauma Center, AIIMS has opined that the stab injury mentioned in the MLC report could be possible by weapon of offence produced.

109. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in State of Maharastra v. Vinayak Tukaram Utekar and Another, 1997 Cri.LJ 3988 that knife is a deadly weapon.

110. In the light of the evidence and discussion above- stated, it has been proved that the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini caused 'grievous' injury to the person of the injured PW1 Vijay Kumar Sharma with a deadly weapon (knife), therefore, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini is liable for the offence charged.

111. It is well settled law that cross-examination is a matter of substance and not of procedure, one is required to put one's version in the cross-examination of an opponent. The effect of non-cross-examination is that the statement of the witness has not been disputed.

FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 44 of 47

112. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. State (Delhi), 2009 (163) DLT 658 as under: -

"175. It is settled law that where a witness is not cross- examined on any relevant aspect, the correctness of the statement made by a witness cannot be disputed. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1328 and Rajinder Prasad v. Darshana Devi AIR 2001 SC 3207)."

113. Further, the Hon'ble MP High Court in Moti Lal and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Crl.L.J (NOC) 125 has held that it is a well settled principle of law that when the accused does not challenge a prosecution witness in his cross- examination on certain facts, it leads to inference of admission of that fact. In Moti Lal's case (supra), the Hon'ble MP High Court observed as follows:-

"In Velu Pillai Padikalingam v. Paramandam it was observed; "every cross-examiner should and can if he is careful indicate in cross-examination whichever part of the evidence given in examination-in-chief is challenged and an omission to do so would lead to the inference that the evidence is accepted subject of course to its being assailed as inherently improbably." Again in Sayed Aleem v. State of Karnataka it was observed that non-cross-examination of prosecution witnesses of certain facts leds to admission of that fact, circumstances could be taken for consideration. Thus, non-consideration, particularly P.W3 Achhelal and P.W.4 Bhajna, on what is being projected in the defence has been rightly held by the trial as sheer afterthought."
FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 45 of 47

114. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl) 471 held as follows:

"It is a rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in cross-examination it must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted. A decision of the Calcutta High Court lends support to the observation as above. (See in this context AEG Carapiet v. AY Derderian :
AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 (P.B. Mukherjee, J. as he then was)]."

115. In view of the above discussion and in the light of judgments in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), Moti Lal's case (supra) and Sarwan Singh's case (supra), since PW10 SI Arun Kumar was not cross-examined by the defence, therefore, his testimonies regarding execution of proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini stands proved.

116. It is also important to note here that PW9 HC Sandeep Kumar was also not cross-examined by the defence, therefore, his testimonies regarding arrest and production of the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini after his being declared a proclaimed offender by the Court also stands proved.

117. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has taken the plea of alibi. It is well settled law that the plea of alibi is the toughest plea and can only be proved by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, the accused Sunil FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 46 of 47 Kumar @ Sunil Saini has led no evidence in his defence, therefore, the plea set up by him remains unproved. Even otherwise, such plea has been taken by him only at the stage of statement of the accused and not before, therefore, it seems to me not plausible plea.

118. The accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini has not tendered any reasonable explanation of his conduct.

119. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge under sections 307/34 and 174A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini, so, the accused Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini is found guilty of having committed the said offences and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under sections 307/34 and 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

120. Let the convict Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Saini be heard on the question of sentence. Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2025.06.06 17:22:18 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR) on 6thof June, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi FIR No.94 /2014 PS Sunlight Colony State v. Sunil Kumar Page 47 of 47