Delhi District Court
State vs Akash on 31 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS DEEPALI SHARMA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -04: EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-006972-2018
SC No. 2063/18
FIR No. 348/2018
under section. 394/397/34 IPC
P.S Kalyan Puri
In the matter of :
State
versus
Akash
S/o Sh. Salek Singh
R/o 13/93, Kalyan Puri, Delhi
Date of Institution : 08.10.2018
Date of reserving Judgment : 26.03.2022
Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2022
Appearance
For the State : Shri.Santosh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For accused : Shri C.S. Tyagi, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.07.2018, information was received at PS Kalyanpuri via a PCR call at 07.03 pm that near 13/425, Kalyanpuri, Baratghar, one boy had stabbed another person and the person who had stabbed had been apprehended and that the injured had been taken to the hospital. DD No. 56A Ex. PW1/D was Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 1/20 recorded in this regard. The said DD was assigned to ASI Gabbar. Const. Mata Prasad was also informed. ASI Gabbar and const. Mata Prasad reached the spot. They were informed that the injured has been taken to LBS hospital. The accused was produced before ASI Gabbar Singh by the public persons, who had apprehended the accused, who had caused injury to the complainant and robbed him. The custody of the accused was handed over to the police and upon inquirry, he revealed his name as Aakash. Upon his search one knife was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant. The knife was made of steel and the handle was wrapped with white and yellow colour plastic and with yellow colour tape. IO prepared sketch of the knife and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. ASI Gabbar Singh went to LBS Hospital and collected MLC Ex. P-Z of injured Ram Narayan.
2. ASI Gabbar Singh recorded the statement of injured Ram Narayan wherein he alleged that he was working as a Salesman. On 13.07.2018, at about 06.30 pm, he was going with the goods from 9 Block, Khichripur to his house. When he reached near the school at 13 Block, Kalyanpuri, one boy followed him and told him to take out whatever he had otherwise he would stab the complainant. The complainant did not listen to him and continued to move ahead. Thereafter that boy pushed him and made him fall on the ground and took out Rs. 10,000/- from left side pocket, which he collected from sale of the goods. When complainant resisted, accused took a knife from his associate and stabbed him on his chest. Complainant raised noise, at this both boys tried to flee away with robbed Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 2/20 money, public apprehend one of the boys, who had stabbed him with knife alongwith the knife. Public inquired them that boy and he disclosed his name to be Aakash s/o Shilek Singh, r/o 13/93, Kalyanpuri, aged 31 years. Complainant made a call at 100 number. Associate of accused Aakash, who had taken robbed money from Aakash, managed to flee away from there. Complainant stated that he could identify that boy. On the basis of the statement of the complainant Ex. PW2/A, FIR bearing no. 348/2018 Ex. PW1/A was registered under section 394/397/34 IPC. The co-accused could not be found.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the present matter under section 394/397/34 IPC against accused Aakash. On the basis of charge-sheet and the documents submitted with it, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Karkardooma Court, took cognizance of offence under Section 394/397/34 IPC and after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C, vide order dated 08.09.2018 committed the case to the Court of Session for 08.10.2018.
Charge :
4. On 19.12.2018, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the accused, charge was framed against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC and under section 25 of Arms Act. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 3/20
Prosecution Evidence :
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses.
(i) PW1 ASI Satya Prakash Duty Officer, who registered the FIR.
(ii) PW2 Ram Narayan injured himself. (iii) PW3 Const. Mata Prasad, part of investigation. He reached the
spot and met ASI Gabbar Singh there. Custody of accused Aakash was handed over to him and a knife was recovered from the possession of accused Aakash and seized by the IO . The IO handed over the rukka to him for registration of the FIR and he got the FIR registered through the Duty Officer and after registration of the FIR handed over the same to SI Sanjeev Rawal. PW3 went alongwith the accused Aakash and IO/SI Sanjeev Rawal to LBS Hospital where IO seized the blood stained clothes of the injured Ram Narayan vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C. Accused Aakash was arrested at LBS Hospital on identification of injured Ram Narayan and necessary steps for his arrest were taken. He also went alongwith IO and injured Ram Narayan and accused Aakash to the spot and IO prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Ram Narayan. He also identified the recovered knife Ex. P-1.
(iv) PW4 ASI Gabbar Singh, part of investigation, who was assigned with DD No. 56A Ex. PW1/D. He went to the spot where the public persons had apprehended the accused and handed over the custody of the accused to him. The knife was recovered from the accused and he prepared the sketch of the knife Ex. PW3/A. PW4 went to LBS hospital Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 4/20 and collected the MLC of injured Ram Narayan and recorded his statement. He made an endorsement on the statement and prepared a rukka, which was handed over to Const. Mata Prasad for registration of the FIR.
(v) PW5 SI Sanjeev Rawal. After registration of FIR the investigation was handed over to SI Sanjeev Rawal, who alongwith Const. Mata Prasad and accused Aakash went to LBS Hospital, where the doctor handed over the exhibits of the injured to him vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C. Accused Aakash was arrested upon identification of complainant Ram Narayan.
Site plan was prepared at the instance of injured vide Ex. PW2/B. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. PW5 also collected the result on MLC regarding nature of injury to the complainant. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
6. Ld. Counsel for the accused admitted the MLC No. 9593 of 2018 of injured Ram Narayan and the opinion on the nature of injury given by Dr. Akhtar. Accordingly, in view of the same ld. APP for the State dropped Dr. Shivesh Rawat and Dr. Akhtar as witnesses to be examined on behalf of the prosecution. The MLC is Ex. PZ.
Documentary Evidence :
7. The prosecution also relied on following documents tendered into evidence i.e. FIR No. 348/2018 (Ex. PW-1/A), endorsement on the rukka (Ex. PW-1/B), Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW-1/C), DD No. 56A (Ex. PW1/D), statement of Ram Narayan (Ex. PW-
Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 5/202/A), site plan (Ex. PW-2/B), arrest memo of accused (Ex. PW-2/C), personal search memo of accused (Ex. PW-2/D), disclosure statement of accused (Ex. PW-2/E), sketch of knife (Ex. PW3/A), seizure memo of blood stained clothes of injured Ram Narayan (Ex. PW3/B), MLC of injured Ram Narayan (Ex. P-Z), endorsement on the complaint (Ex. PW4/A).
Statement of accused :
8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, on 09.03.2022 statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case by the police in connivance with the complainant. He did not wish to lead any evidence in his defence.
Arguments :
9. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was not involved in the incident as alleged. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that in the initial DD No. 56A Ex. PW1/D, there is no mention of alleged robbery. Similarly, in the MLC of the complainant Ex. P-Z, there is no mention of robbery and only a history of assault / stab injury is indicated therein. It is also urged that the nature of injury is indicated to be "simple" in the MLC of the injured. The said injury is shown over epigastric area Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 6/20 approximately 3x1 cm. It is urged that the said injury being in the frontal part of the body could have been a self inflicted injury also.
10. It is further argued that the complainant has deposed that two persons including accused Akash had robbed him of Rs. 10,000/-. Additionally, he had also deposed that he had made a call to the police with his mobile phone. It is contended that it is improbable that the accused persons would have robbed the complainant of Rs. 10,000/- while leaving his mobile phone with him. It is also argued that the nomination of the currency notes which were robbed is not mentioned by the complainant. It is urged that the seizure memo of knife Ex. PW3/B, allegedly used in the commission of the offence reflects that the words "rocket steel Germany were written on the knife, however, the sketch of the knife Ex. PW3/A does not reflect the said words. It is urged that the knife was a planted one and no knife as alleged was recovered from the accused or at his instance and even the seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW3/B does not bear the signatures of the accused. Moreover, no opinion was obtained to indicate that the injury caused to the complainant had been caused by the said knife only.
11. It is also urged that PW1 has deposed that Ct. Mata Prasad handed over the rukka to him at 9:45 PM for registration of the FIR and after its registration, FIR was handed over to Ct. Mata Prasad for handing it over to the IO. It is stated that in his cross-examination Ct. Mata Prasad has deposed that he reached the spot at about 7:30 PM and stayed there for Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 7/20 about 45 minutes and hence there is a contradiction in his testimony and the testimony of PW1 who deposed that Ct. Mata Prasad handed over the rukka at 9:45 PM.
12. It is accordingly argued that the accused has been falsely roped in the present case by the police in connivance with the complainant, which fact is duly is established on record and therefore, the applicant is liable to be acquitted of the offence he is charged with.
13. On the other hand, it is contended by the Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that the testimony of the complainant is his natural version. It is stated that the complainant PW2 has given a clear account of the manner in which he was robbed and injured by the accused. It is urged that the knife was also recovered from the possession of the accused. The accused was apprehended at the spot by public persons and hence there is no possibility of false implication. It is contended that the scientific evidence is corroborative to testimony of the complainant. It is also contended that the accused has not raised any credible defence in his favour and thereby it is proved on record that the accused has inflicted injury upon the victim/complainant and therefore, he is guilty of the offence charged with.
Testimonies of material public witnesses:
14. Testimony of injured PW2 Ram Narayan. He deposed that on 13.07.2018 at about 06.30 pm, he was returning to his house after taking goods from Block No. 9, Khichripur. When he reached near school of 13 Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 8/20 Block, Kalyanpuri, he found two persons standing there. PW2 was on a bicycle. Those persons told him "Jo Kuch Bhi Hai Wo Nikal De, Nahi To Chaku Mar Denge". At this PW2 tried to move away on his bicycle from there. However, those two persons pushed him and robbed Rs. 10,000/- from him, which were kept in the left pocket of his pant. One of the persons inflicted knife injury near his chest. PW2 raised an alarm and public persons gathered there. One of the persons was apprehended at the spot by public persons and the other managed to escape from the spot. Upon inquiry, the name of the person, who was apprehended at the spot, was revealed as Aakash. The knife with which accused Aakash had inflicted injury to PW2 was also recovered from his possession. However, the money could not be recovered from accused Aakash as the other person had fled away from the spot with the money. PW2 made a call at 100 number from his phone. Public persons took PW2 to LBS Hospital before the police reached the spot. Police met him at the hospital and recorded his statement vide Ex. PW2/A after inquiring from him regarding the incident.
15. PW2 identified accused Aakash as the person, who had committed the robbery upon him and as the person, who had inflicted knife injury to him. He also identified the knife Ex. P-1 as the same knife with which accused Aakash had inflicted knife injury to him.
16. Accused Akash has been charged for offences under section 392/394/34 IPC read with section 397 IPC.With regard to evidential value Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 9/20 to be attached to testimony of a sole injured withness, it would be worthwhile to the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.
17. In Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"13. To our mind, it appears that the High Court did not follow the aforesaid standard but went on to analyse evidence as if the material before them was given for the first time and not in appeal. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eyewitness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when the prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eyewitness, it should be wholly reliable. Even though such witness is an injured witness and his presence may not be seriously doubted, when his evidence is in conflict with other evidence, the view taken by the trial court that it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his sole testimony cannot be stated to be unreasonable." (emphasis supplied)
18. As regards the testimony of an injured witness, in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 the Hon'ble Supreme court made the following observations:
"Injured witness
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 10/20 to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness."
19. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments and noted the decision in Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka[1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] wherein it was held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as follows:
''30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.'' Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 11/20
20. The testimony of the complainant has to be examined in the light of law discussed hereinabove. The complainant in his testimony recorded before court has detailed the manner in which he was robbed and injured by two accused persons. He deposed that on 13.07.2018 when he was returning to his house after taking goods from Block No. 9, Khichdipur, he found two persons standing near the school at 13 Block Kalyanpuri. Complainant was on bicycle. Those two accused persons told him to take out whatever he had otherwise they would stab him. Upon hearing the same, the complainant tried to move away on his bicycle, however, those two accused persons pushed him and robbed Rs. 10,000/- which were kept in the left pocket of his pant. Accused Aakash inflicted knife injury near his chest. The complainant raised an alarm and some public persons gathered there and accused Aakash was apprehended at the spot by them and the other accused managed to escape. The knife Ex. P-1 was also recovered from the possession of accused Aakash.
21. The complainant identified accused Aakash to be the person who had committed robbery upon him and who had inflicted knife injury to him. He also identified his blood stained clothes i.e. light sky blue shirt and white vest Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 respectively, which he was wearing at the time of incident. Money could not recovered as the other assailant fled away from the spot with money.
22. In his initial statement recorded by the Police Ex. PW2/A also, the complainant gave the above said details regarding the incident. There are Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 12/20 no material variations in the statement of the complainant recorded by the Police Ex. PW2/A and his testimony before the Court. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the denomination of the currency notes which were allegedly robbed from the complainant have not been revealed by the complainant in as much as no robbery took place is untenable in as much as the said fact does not go to the root of the matter. Similarly, the contention that the fact that the mobile phone of the complainant was left with the complainant during robbery casts a doubt over his version as the robbers would not have left the mobile phone while committing robbery is also not sufficient to demolish the prosecution version. The complainant PW2 has deposed that he had raised an alarm and public persons gathered there. The incident occurred within a span of few minutes and merely because the mobile phone of the complainant was not robbed by the assailants is not sufficient to detract from the veracity of the incident.
23. It is contended that the police did not record the statement of any public witnesses despite the fact that the accused was allegedly apprehended with the help of public persons points to false implication of the accused as there is no independent witness of the incident. In this connection PW4 deposed that the public persons had left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. It has been noted in a catena of decisions that public witnesses are reluctant to join the investigation. Even otherwise, the non joining of public witnesses by the IO can only be said to be a fault in investigation which cannot be the sole basis for Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 13/20 disbelieving the entire case of the prosecution. As regards the defects in the investigation pointed out by ld. Counsel for the accused it would be worthwhile to consider the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal [(2012) 8 SCC 263, wherein while dealing with the cases of omissions and commissions by the investigating officer, and duty of the court in such cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"27. Now, we may advert to the duty of the court in such cases. In Sathi Prasad v. State of U.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 613 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 659] this Court stated that it is well settled that if the police records become suspect and investigation perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the court to see if the evidence given in court should be relied upon and such lapses ignored. Noticing the possibility of investigation being designedly defective, this Court in Dhanaj Singhv. State of Punjab [(2004) 3 SCC 654 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 851] , held: (SCC p. 657, para 5) '5. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.'
28. Dealing with the cases of omission and commission, the Court in Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 104 : AIR 1999 SC 644] enunciated the principle, in conformity with the previous judgments, that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party."Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 14/20
Hence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors the omissions in investigation to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. Therefore the contentions as regards the defects in the investigation including not obtaining opinion if the injury in issue could be caused by knife Ex P1, not sending the exhibits to FSL would not be material if the prosecution is able to prove its version through evidence brought on record.
24. Pertinently accused Aakash was apprehended at the spot by public persons and he was found to be in possession of the knife. The seizure memo of the knife is Ex. PW3/B and the sketch prepared by ASI Gabbar Singh is Ex. PW3/A. The knife Ex. P-1 was identified by the complainant PW2, who stated that it is the same knife by which accused Aakash had inflicted knife injury upon him while committing robbery.
25. It is contended that Ex. PW3/B, seizure memo of knife mentioned that the words "Rocket Steel Germany" were inscribed on the knife, however, no such words are indicated on the sketch of knife Ex. PW3/A, which to the fact that the knife has been planted upon the accused. In this regard, it would be relevant to note that the accused was apprehended at the spot and the knife was also recovered from his possession from right side pocket of the pant. Merely because the words mentioned above are not mentioned on the sketch of the knife Ex. PW3/A would not be a material fact since the sketch of knife or weapon of offence is prepared to Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 15/20 bring on record the dimensions and the nature of weapon used but not the make/brand of the weapon. Hence, the contention in this regard is misconceived.
26. It is argued by the counsel for the accused that the injury was found on the front portion of the body and simple in nature and the same could easily have been inflicted by the complainant upon himself. Additionally it is contended that the exhibits were not sent to FSL and no opinion was obtained as to whether the injury could have been caused to the complainant by the means of the knife Ex. P1 and hence, it is not conclusively established that the injury upon the complainant was caused by the accused by the means of the knife Ex. P1.
27. The complainant PW2 was medically examined vide MLC No. 9593 of 2018 Ex. PZ, which indicates incised wound over epigastric area approximately 3x1 cm, muscle deep, depth to be analyzed by Sr. Surgery. The kind of weapon of used was mentioned to be "sharp". The opinion given by Sr. Surgery is that the injury was 'simple' in nature.
28. In this context, it is relevant to note that in his testimony complainant PW2 stated that accused Aakash had inflicted knife injury to him near his chest, which fact is corroborated by his MLC Ex. PZ, which indicates an incised wound of 3x1 cm over epigastric area. Nature of weapon used is indicated to be sharp. No suggestion has been put to the complainant that the injury was a self inflicted one nor has any reason to Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 16/20 inflict injury by the complainant upon himself has been shown by the accused. Hence, the contention in this regard is misfounded and is not sufficient to dislodge the otherwise reliable prosecution version.
29. The testimony of PW2 is also corroborated by recovery of the knife Ex. P-1 from the possession of the accused. It is also relevant to note that the complainant had also identified his clothes i.e. blood stained light sky blue shirt and white vest as Ex. P-2 & P-3 respectively, which he was wearing at the time of incident. The said clothes were taken into possession by the doctor at the time of medical examination of the accused and were seized by the IO vide Ex. PW3/C. Hence, the testimony of complainant is sufficiently corroborated by the above said recovery of knife and its identification during recording of the testimony as well as the identification of blood stained clothes of the complainant. The complainant also identified the accused to be the person, who had inflicted knife injury upon him. Hence, merely because the exhibits were not sent to FSL and no opinion regarding the weapon used was taken would not be sufficient to demolish the prosecution case in light of the categorical identification of the accused, knife Ex. P1, the clothes Ex. P-2 and P-3 by the complainant PW2 during recording of his testimony and the MLC of the accused.
30. The complainant was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the ld. Counsel for the accused, however, nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony. No previous enmity, ill-will or grudge has been Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 17/20 shown against the accused for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. The complainant consistently maintained his version during the stage of investigation and during trial before the court. No material contradiction was revealed in his versions at both stages. His version thus appears to be natural and inspires confidence.
31. It is also settled law that recovery of the robbed articles is not fatal to prove the offence of robbery and in the instant case the associate of the accused has fled from the spot with the robbed money.
Defence of the accused
32. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. PC, the accused pleaded that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case by the police in connivance with the complainant. No reason for false implication has been indicated in the cross examination of the complainant PW2. Only a bald suggestion has been put to PW2 that he had prior enmity with the accused which suggestion was denied by PW2. No reason for prior enmity has been put to the complainant during his cross-examination. No reason has been placed on record for the police to have falsely implicated the accused in the present case. In these circumstances, no cogent defence has been raised by the accused to dislodge the prosecution version. The mere suggestion that the complainant had prior enmity with the accused is not sufficient to demolish the prosecution version. In these circumstances, the purported defence raised by the accused is not proved.
Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 18/2033. It is thus proved on record that the accused persons had robbed the complainant of Rupees Ten Thousand by telling the complainant PW2 to take out whatever he had otherwise they would stab him. Accused Aakash had also stabbed the complainant PW2 at the time of incident. The complainant PW2 suffered 'simple' injury caused by a sharp weapon. Accordingly, it is proved on record that the complainant was robbed by the accused Aakash and his associate Manoj (not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention.
34. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of accused Akash beyond reasonable doubt to the effect that on 13.07.2018, accused Akash while committing robbery caused hurt to the complainant and is hence guilty of an offence punishable under section 394 IPC. While committing robbery, accused Akash used a deadly weapon ie a knife Ex. P-1 having a blade of the size 19.5 cm, width 4 cm and caused hurt to the complainant, hence he is guilty of offence under section 397 IPC.
35. Accused Aakash has also been charged for an offence under section 25 of the Arms Act as he was found in possession of the knife Ex. P-1 having a blade of the size 19.5 cm, width 4 cm. The dimensions of the knife are revealed in Ex. PW3/A. As per the notification of the Delhi Administration, a knife with a blade size of 7.62 cm or more in length and 1.72 cm or more in width is regulated and covered under section 4 of the Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 19/20 Arms Act. Accordingly, the knife in issue Ex. P-1, which accused Aakash was found to be in possession and recovered from the him was thus in violation of the notification of the Delhi Government Gazette Notification dated 17.2.1979 bearing No.F.13/203/78-Home (C) and hence, the accused Akash is guilty for an offence under section 25 of Arms Act.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion and evidence on record, accused Aakash is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 392/394/397/34 IPC and under section 25 of Arms Act.
Announced in the open Court on this 31st day of March, 2022 (Deepali Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge-04 East District/KKD Courts/Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 2063/2017 . Page 20/20