Delhi District Court
State vs Mandeep Singh @ Mufa on 16 August, 2024
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 168/2017)
FIR No. 1009/2016
Police Station KNK Marg
Charge sheet filed 307/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 307/34 IPC
Section
State V/s (1) Mandeep Singh @ Mufa
S/o Sh. Surjan Singh
R/o 26A, Gali No.6 Chander
Vihar, Veer Bazar, Nelothi
Extension, Delhi.
(2) Daler Singh @ Banty
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o J-315, Gali No.6, Sardar
Colony, Sector - 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
(3) Sonu @ Commando (Expired)
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o J-197, Gali No.5, Sardar
Colony, Sector - 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
......Accused Persons
Date of institution & 17.03.2017 &
SHEFALI Digitally signed by
SHEFALI SHARMA
SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA 06:05:17 +0530
Date: 2024.08.16
State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc.
Page No. 1 of 40
-:2:-
Date of Supplementary 17.01.2018
charge-sheet
Arguments concluded on 20.07.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 16.08.2024
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that on 08.12.2016, at about 07.00 p.m. at Veer Bazar, Delhi, an information regarding a quarrel at Gali no.5, Sector - 16, Sardar Colony, was received vide DD No. 36A, PS KNK Marg. A case was registered on the complaint of one Kartar Singh alleging that on the above said date and time, he along with his friend Krishna @ Kishan Singh were abused by Mandeep Singh @ Mufa and after sometime, he along with cousin Daler Singh @ Bunty, Commando @ Sonu and Tejpal Singh @ Buggi came back with knives in their hands and all of a sudden on the provocation of accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa, one of his cousin i.e. accused Daler Singh @ Bunty attacked on the head of the complainant with knife and subsequently accused Commando @ Sonu and Mandeep Singh @ Mufa also attacked the complainant on his head with knives. During the process, friend of the complainant namely Krishan tried to rescue him and the complainant was taken to Ambedkar Hospital where his MLC was prepared and he was questioned by the police officials, who Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:05:23 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 2 of 40 -:3:- recorded his statement.
After recording the statement of other witnesses and on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet had been filed under Section 307/34 IPC by the IO against accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa and supplementary charge-sheet against accused Daler Singh @ Banty and Sonu @ Commando.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 12.07.2017 charge under Section 307/34 IPC was found to be made out against accused Mandeep @ Mufa and vide order dated 12.04.2018 charge under Section 307/34 IPC was found to be made out against accused Daler Singh @ Banty. The formal charge as above was framed against the accused persons on the said dates to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 19 witnesses in all.
PW1 is Dr.Vijay Dhankar. He has deposed that on 20.01.2017, a request was received from SI Satender Kumar of PS KNK Marg for opinion regarding injuries sustained by one Ravi, aged about 24 years male on 08.12.2016. He further deposed that the injured was examined at BSA Hospital vide MLC No. 15770/16 with E number 287004 dated 08.12.2016.
Digitally signedSHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:05:29 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 3 of 40 -:4:- That the copy of MLC and the alleged weapon of offence (knife) in a sealed pulanda was submitted along with the request. Seals was found intact. He further deposed that he prepared the sketch of knife and gave his opinion Ex. PW1/A and in his opinion, injury mentioned in the MLC could be caused by the weapon examined. He further deposed that after examination, the weapon was re-sealed and handed over to police officials along with the opinion.
PW2 is Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini. He has deposed that on 08.12.2016, he examined the patient Ravi 24 years male vide MLC No. 15770 vide his observation from portion X to X1 on Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that on 13.01.2017, he gave his opinion qua nature of injury as "simple" on the MLC Ex.PW2/B. PW3 is injured Kartar Singh. He has deposed as under:
"I am residing at the aforesaid address alongwith my family. I am a working as a welder.
On 08.12.2016, I alongwith my friend Kishan had gone to Veer Bazar to fetch the vegetables at about 7:00 pm. At Veer Bazar, accused Mufa @ Mandeep Singh met me, who resides at Sardar Colony at gali no.5 and he abused me and stated to me that around 1 - 1 ½ years back, his brother given beatings to me. I objected to accused Mandeep for not abusing me and he left from there.
After some time, while me and Kishan were purchasing vegetables, accused Mandeep Singh, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) came there alongwith his brothers Bhuggi, Bunty, Commando (since expired). Accused Daler Singh @ Bunty is also present in the court Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:05:34 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 4 of 40 -:5:- today (correctly identified by the witness) and they started giving beatings to me. I was stabbed with knife, which was used for cutting the meat by accused Mandeep @ Mufa on my head and Bhuggi had taken out the knife and handed over to Commando and Commando also stabbed the knife on my head. Accused Daler Singh @ Bunty had also attacked me with a knife and struck knife blows over my head.
During this process, my friend Kishan tried to rescue me and requested the accused and his associates to leave me "chhod do isse mat maaro" and thereafter both the accused persons, who are is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) alongwith their associates left the spot after assaulting me with knives and I fell. My parents were called by my friend Kishan and I was removed to Ambedkar Hospital by PCR van, where I was medically treated. Accused Mandeep, Daler Singh @ Bunty alongwith his cousins Commando and Bhuggi assaulted me with knives with the intention to kill me.
Police came at hospital and made inquires from me and recorded my statement Ex.
PW3/A and same was read over and explained to me and after finding it to be the correct, I signed the same at point A. Accused Tejpal Singh @ Bhuggi is JCL.
So far as I remember today, my blood stained clothes were seized by the treating doctors. I can identify my said blood stained clothes and knives used by the accused persons in assaulting me, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC (M) has produced the case property. Parcel no. 3 sealed with the seal of court is opened. The same is found containing one big knife / chopper. The same is shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same as already Ex. P1 being used by the accused persons at the time of commission of offence upon him.Digitally signed
SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 06:05:40 +0530 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 5 of 40 -:6:- At this stage, one pulanda sealed with the seal of FSL is opened. The same is opened and found containing one plastic container containing one blood stained waist / baniyan of red colour. The same is shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same as Ex. P2 which he was wearing at the time of occurrence."
PW4 is Sh. Kishan Singh @ Krishna. He has deposed as under:
I have been residing at the aforesaid address along with my family and I am a welder by profession. On 08.12.2016 I along with my friend Kartar Singh went to Veer Bazar for purchasing vegetables. In between 7:30/7:45 p.m. while we were present in the Veer Bazar and were purchasing vegetables, accused Mufa @ Mandeep Singh, present in the court today, (correctly identified) came there. Upon reaching there, accused Mufa started using abusive language against my friend Kartar Singh @ Ravi. After giving abusive language, accused Mufa left the said market. Thereafter, while we were present in the Market, within 5 to 10 minutes, accused Mufa @ Mandeep came there and was accompanied by accused Daler Singh @ Bunty, present in court today (correctly identified) and was also accompanied by Sonu @ Commando (since expired) and by one boy namely Bhuggi. Accused Mandeep @ Mufa, Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu were armed with knives. They all cornered my friend Kartar Singh @ Ravi and started assaulting him with knives. The accused persons caused 7-8 knives blows over the head of my friend Kartar Singh. I tried to rescue my friend and pleaded to the accused persons but they had not heard of me. After causing injuries to Kartar Singh, all the accused persons managed to run away. In the meantime, my brother Sonu who was passing through the said way had called the Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:05:46 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 6 of 40 -:7:- family members of Kartar Singh. I and my Mami made a call at 100 number and PCR van came there and took Kartar Singh @ Ravi to hospital where he was medically examined. During investigation, police had recorded my statement. I can identify the case property/knives if shown to me. At this stage, MHC (M) has produced the case property and parcel no. 3 sealed with the seal of 'AA' is opened. The same is found containing one big knife/choppar. The same is shown to the witness and witness identify the said knife as Ex. P1, which was being used by accused Daler Singh @ Bunty at the time of commission of offence."
PW5 is ASI Rakesh. He has deposed that on 08.12.2016, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, Outer District and working as a photographer. That on that day, he along with Incharge Crime Team, SI Satya Dev reached at the spot i.e. Veer Bazar Road, Sector-16, Rohini, there they met ASI Deshpal and he took 5 photographs from different angles at the spot on the directions of IO. That thereafter, the said photographs were developed and handed over to IO. The said photographs are Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A5 and the negatives and same are Ex.PW5/B1 to Ex. PW5/B5.
PW6 is ASI Manoj Kumar. He has deposed that on 08.12.2016 I was posted at PS KNK Marg as ASI and was on duty as DO having duty hours 4 p.m. to 12 night. That on that day, at about 7:20 p.m. wireless operator came to DO room and gave an information regarding quarrel at gali no. 5, Sector 16, Sardar Colony, Rohini. Accordingly, he lodged DD NO. 36 A in Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:05:53 +0530 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 7 of 40 -:8:- Rojnamcha and informed the contents of DD No. 36 A to ASI Deshpal over telephone. Attested copy of the DD No. 36 A is Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that on the same day, HC Sunil brought a rukka sent by ASI Deshpal. Accordingly, he went to computer room and got FIR no.1009/16 registered through computer operator. The computerized copy of FIR is Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed that he had also made endorsement at portion X to X on rukka, which is Ex. PW6/C. That he had also issued certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW6/D. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he had handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Sunil for handing over the same to ASI Deshpal. Again said, to SI Satender.
PW7 is SI Ramesh Kumar. He has deposed that on 15.09.2015 he was on duty as DO having duty hours 12 night to 8:00 a.m. That on that day, at about 1:00 a.m., Ct. Badri Prasad brought a rukka sent by SI L.N. Saini. Accordingly, he went to computer room and got FIR no. 968/15 registered through computer operator. The computerized copy of FIR is Ex. PW7/A. That after registration of FIR, he had handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct Badri Prasad for handing over the same to SI L.N. Saini.
PW8 is SI Satya Dev. He has deposed that on 08.12.2016, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, Rohini District as incharge. That on that day, at about 10:30 pm, a call was received from control room and accordingly, he alongwith Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:06:01 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 8 of 40 -:9:- my staff consisting of HC Rakesh (photographer) and HC Surender (finger print proficient) reached at the spot i.e. Veer Bazar Road, near Sardar Colony, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi, where we met ASI Despal and HC Sunil. That at the spot, he had inspected the said place of occurrence and on his instructions, photographer HC Rakesh took photographs from different angles. He further deposed that after inspection, he had prepared crime team report Ex.PW8/A and handed over the said report to the IO.
PW9 is HC Sunil. He has deposed that on 08.12.2016, he was on emergency duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm alongwith ASI Despal. That on that day, DD No. 36A was marked to ASI Despal and accordingly, he had accompanied him to the place of occurrence i.e. Veer Bazar Road, between DDA Park D Block and DDA Land, Sector-16, Rohini. He further deposed that on the spot, it was revealed to them that injured had been taken to BSA hospital by PCR officials. That ASI Despal had left him to the place of occurrence and went to BSA Hospital.
He further deposed that after some time, ASI Despal returned back to the spot and called crime team. That Crime team officials had inspected the place of occurrence. Crime team photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence. That from the spot, ASI Despal had lifted the earth control as well as blood stained earth and kept the said exhibits in separate plastic containers and both the said containers were sealed with Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:06:07 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 9 of 40 -:10:- the seal of DPS and was seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. That thereafter, ASI Despal had handed over him rukka. Accordingly, he took the said rukka to PS and got FIR No. 1009/16 registered through duty officer. That after the registration of FIR, the investigation was marked to SI Satender. He had handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Satender at PS and thereafter accompanied him to the place of occurrence. He further deposed that at the spot, SI Satender had prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of public witness Kishan Singh. That ASI Despal had handed over the pulandas to IO as well as the relevant memos.
PW10 is ASI Despal. He has deposed that on 08.12.2016, he was on emergency duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm alongwith HC Sunil Rathi. That on that day, DD No. 36A was marked to him and accordingly, he alongwith HC Sunil Rathi went to the place of occurrence i.e. Veer Bazar Road, between DDA Park D Block and DDA Land, Sector-16, Rohini. That on the spot, it was revealed to them that injured had been taken to BSA hospital by PCR officials. He had left HC Sunil Rathi to the place of occurrence and went to BSA Hospital. That in the said hospital, he had collected MLC no. 15770/16 of Ravi @ Kartar Singh. He had also seized the exhibits handed over to him by duty police official i.e. ASI Suresh vide seizure memo Ex.
PW10/A. That in the hospital, he had recorded the statement of Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:06:13 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 10 of 40 -:11:- Kartar Singh @ Ravi. Thereafter, he had returned back to the spot and called crime team. That Crime team officials had inspected the place of occurrence and Crime team photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence. He further deposed that from the spot, he had lifted the earth control as well as blood stained earth and kept the said exhibits in separate plastic containers and both the said containers were sealed with the seal of DPS and was seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. He further deposed that thereafter, he had prepared rukka Ex.PW10/B and handed over the said rukka to HC Sunil Rathi. That HC Sunil Rathi took the said rukka to PS and got FIR No. 1009/16 registered through duty officer. That after the registration of FIR, the investigation was marked to SI Satender and IO SI Satender alongwith HC Sunil Rathi had reached at the spot. That at the spot, SI Satender had prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of public witness Kishan Singh. He further deposed that he had handed over the pulandas to IO as well as the relevant memos.
PW11 is Ct. Sandeep Kumar. He has deposed that on 14.12.2016, he had joined the investigation with IO SI Satender. That on that day, while they were present at Sardar Colony, Gali no. 5, Sector-16, Rohini, there they met witness Kishan Singh @ Krishan. Thereafter, while they were searching the offenders, witness Krishan Singh pointed out towards JCL Buggi @ Tejpal. That they managed to apprehend the said JCL.Digitally signed by SHEFALI
SHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:06:20 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 11 of 40 -:12:- That IO had interrogated said JCL and prepared apprehension memo in the presence of his mother.
He further deposed that thereafter, the said JCL was medically examined from BSA Hospital and was produced before JJB.
PW12 is Ct. Balkar Singh. He has deposed that on 19.12.2016, he was posted at PS KNK Marg and on that day, while he was present at PS, accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa, who was named in FIRm, interrogated by IO SI Satender and after interrogation, effected his arrest vide arrest memo Ex.
PW12/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW12/B. He further deposed that accused Mandeep Singh had also made disclosure statement Ex. PW12/C. PW13 is Sh. Surat Singh. He has deposed that he has been residing at C-2/198, Second Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi alongwith his family. That he had installed one CCTV camera in the staircases in front of his house. That during the course of investigation of the present case, IO SI Satender had requested him for providing CCTV footage of the said camera dated 08.12.2016 between 7:15 pm to 7:30 pm. That on the request of IO, he had installed the said CCTV footage in a pen drive and handed over the said pen drive to IO. That IO had seized the said pen drive vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/A. He further deposed that he had also handed over one certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW13/B but not able to identify the said pen drive.
Digitally signed by SHEFALISHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.08.16 06:06:25 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 12 of 40 -:13:- PW14 is ASI Naresh Kumar. He has deposed that on 08.12.2016, he was posted at PCR Outer Zone and on that day, his duty was on PCR van Libra 69 as Incharge from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. That at about 7:30 pm, he received a call from control room on wireless regarding quarrel at gali no. 5, Sardar Colony, Sector-16, Rohini, as such ge alongwith staff and PCR van reached at the spot. That there he saw a crowd of people and one person out of the said crowd was having an injury on his head and a cloth was found tied around his head from which blood was oozing. That on inquiry, his name was revealed as Ravi S/o Kartar Singh. He further deposed that he shifted him to BSA Hospital, who was treated vide MLC no. 15770/16.
PW15 is Ct. Rishi Raj. He has deposed that on 08.01.2018, he had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith Ct. Vikas and SI Satender Kumar and they all reached in court room no. 110, Rohini Courts i.e. the court of Ld. MM Ms. Kadambari Awasthi. That there accused Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu @ Commando (since expired) had surrendered before the court. He further deposed that with the permission of the court, IO SI Satender Kumar had interrogated both the said accused and had formally arrested them. He further deposed that arrest memo of accused Daler Singh @ Bunty is Ex. PW15/A. He further deposed that IO had also recorded the disclosure statements of both the said accused, but nothing was recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements.
Digitally signed by SHEFALISHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.08.16 06:06:31 +0530 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 13 of 40 -:14:- He further deposed that IO had obtained one day police custody remand of both the said accused and thereafter they both were got medically examined at BSA Hospital. That thereafter, both the said accused led them to the spot and pointed out the spot i.e. Veer Bazar Road between DDA land and DDA park, D Block, Pole no. 581-43/11, Sector-16, Rohini vide pointing out memo Ex.PW15/B. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Daler Singh @ Bunty led them near ganda nala, Sector-17, Rohini and pointed out the place, where they had thrown the weapon of offence i.e. knife, after the incident on 08.12.2016. He further deposed that efforts were made for the recovery of the said knife, but same could not be recovered. That thereafter, they came back to the PS. That both the said accused were kept in the lock-up PW16 is Ct. Vikas. He has deposed that on 08.01.2018, he had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith Ct. Rishiraj and SI Satender Kumar and they all reached in court room no. 110, Rohini Courts i.e. the court of Ld. MM Ms. Kadambari Awasthi. That there accused Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu @ Commando (since expired) had surrendered before the court. That with the permission of the court, IO SI Satender Kumar had interrogated both the said accused and had formally arrested them. That arrest memo of accused Daler Singh @ Bunty is Ex. PW15/A and IO had also recorded the disclosure statements of both the said accused. That IO had obtained one day police custody remand of both the said accused Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:06:36 +0530 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 14 of 40 -:15:- and thereafter they both were got medically examined at BSA Hospital. Thereafter, both the said accused led them to the spot and pointed out the spot i.e. Veer Bazar Road between DDA land and DDA park, D Block, Pole no. 581-43/11, Sector-16, Rohini vide pointing out memo Ex. PW15/B. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Daler Singh @ Bunty led them near ganda nala, Sector-17, Rohini and pointed out the place, where they had thrown the weapon of offence i.e. knife, after the incident on 08.12.2016. He further deposed that efforts were made for the recovery of the said knife, but same could not be recovered. Thereafter, they came back to the PS and both the said accused were kept in the lock-up.
PW17 is ASI Bijender Dhama. He has deposed that on 18.12.2016, he joined the investigation of the present case. That accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa was taken out of the lock up and interrogated by the IO, who revealed that he could produce the knife used in the commission of offence. That the IO SI Satender Kumar recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW17/A. He further deposed that the accused led them to H. No. J-216, Gali No. 5, Sardar Colony,. Sector 16, Rohini Delhi at the ground floor where bed was lying. That accused produced one knife meant for cutting of meat and the said knife was measured by the IO. He further deposed that IO prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW17/B. That the said knife was wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into pullanda which was sealed with the seal of SK. That the said pullanda was taken Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 2024.08.16 06:06:44 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 15 of 40 -:16:- in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/C and seal after use was handed over to him. He further deposed that IO prepared the sketch of the place Ex. PW17/D from where the knife was recovered.
He further deposed that accused led them to the scene of crime and pointed out the same and IO prepared the pointing out memo the scene of crime Ex. PW17/E. He has also identified the case property i.e. knife Ex. P1, as recovered at the instance of accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa.
PW18 is Ms. Poonam Sharma. She has proved her detailed report dated 16.06.2017 are Ex.PW18/A. PW19 is SI Satender Kumar. He has deposed that in the intervening night of 08/09.12.2016, HC Sunil Rathi handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR No. 1009/16 U/s 307/34 IPC to him as the investigation of said case was marked to him. That thereafter, he alongwith HC Sunil Rathi reached at Veer Bazar Road, near DDA Park, D-Block, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi where they met ASI Deshpal, photographer and IC Crime Team. That ASI Deshpal handed over seizure memos exhibits seized by the BSA Hospital i.e. blood stained baniyan, blood gauze, blood stained concrete and earth control (lifted from the spot) as well as relevant documents of the case to him. He further deposed that witness Kishan Kumar was also present there. That he prepared rough site plan Ex. PW19/A at the instance of Kishan Kumar. He collected crime inspected report Ex.PW8/A from the IC Crime Team. That he recorded statement of IC Crime Team, Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:06:49 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 16 of 40 -:17:- photographer and eyewitness Kishan Kumar @ Kala. That thereafter, he made search of co accused persons but they could not be traced. He further deposed that he came to know that one of the accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa had been shifted to BSA Hospital, on which he alongwith HC Sunil reached BSA Hospital where they came to know that accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa had been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. After that he alongwith HC Sunil came back to PS and the case property deposited in malkahana of PS KNK Marg. He further deposed that in the morning hours he was informed by the DO that accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa has come to PS to inquire about status of his complaint. That HC Balkar joined the investigation in this case and he interrogated accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa and arrrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/A. That he conducted the personal search of accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Ex.PW12/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW12/C. He further deposed that thereafter, he lodged accused in lock up in the PS. He shifted the accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa to BSA Hospital because his health condition was not good and the concerned doctor of BSA Hospital admitted him in the hospital for his medical treatment. That he had filed the application before the Hon'ble Court for sending the accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa to JC as he was not in the condition. Thereafter, Ld. MM visited the hospital and sent the accused to JC for 06 day period.
He further deposed that on 10.12.2016, he reached at H. No. C-2/198, Second Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi where Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:06:55 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 17 of 40 -:18:- CCTV camera was installed in abovesaid house and he checked the CCTV footage and found that accused persons were visible going towards place of incident and returned back from the place of incident in the CCTV footage. That he had obtained the CCTV footage for the period of 07:15 pm to 07:30 pm dated 08.12.2016 in the pen drive alongwith certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act. That the seizure memo of pen drive CCTV footage is Ex.PW13/A and certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW13/B. The Pen drive Ex. P-2 was played on the court computer and after seeing the CCTV footage witness recognized and identified the movement of 04 accused persons in the present FIR at 19:20:03 and 19:24:27.
He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the owner of the house from where he obtained the CCTV footage namely Surat Singh.
He further deposed that on 14.12.2016, secret informer met him and informed him one of the accomplice in the present case namely Tej Pal Singh @ Buggi is CCL and he saw Tej Pal Singh @ Buggi/CCL near the gali No. 5, Sardar Colony, Sector- 16, Rohini, Delhi. That thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep and secret informer reached in gali No. 5, Sardar Colony, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi. He also called eyewitness of the case namely Kishan @ Kala in the gali No. 5. CCL Tej Pal Singh @ Buggi was standing at the corner of the gali and he apprehended him. That he called the mother of CCL Tej Pal Singh @ Buggi Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:07:11 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 18 of 40 -:19:- namely Paramjit Kaur near the Gali No. 5. He further deposed that he recorded the version of CCL Tej Pal Singh @ Buggi CCL. He sent the said CCL to BSA Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, he sent the CCL to observation home Sewakutir, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. That he recorded the statement of eyewitness and Ct. Sandeep. That on next day, he produced CCL Tej Pal Singh @ Buggi CCL before the JJB Board.
He further deposed that on 17.12.2016, accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa was produced before the Hon'ble Court from JC and he obtained the 02 days PC remand of accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa from the Hon'ble Court.
He further deposed that on 18.12.2016, he again interrogated accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa regarding the weapon of offence i.e. knife and recorded his supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW17/A. That thereafter, he alongwith HC Bijender and accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa reached his house at J-216, Gali No. 5, Sardar Colony, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi and at his instance one knife was recovered from inside the room and which was hidden under bed which was lying in the said room. That he seized the said knife, after taking the measurement of the said knife by covering up in the white colour cloth and converted it into the pullanda and sealed with the seal of SK. That he prepared the seizure memo of knife Ex.PW17/C. He also prepared the sketch of the said knife Ex.PW17/B. That he also prepared the site plan in respect of recovery of Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:07:17 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 19 of 40 -:20:- Ex.PW17/D. That theereafter, he alongwith HC Bijender and accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa went to the place of incident i.e. Veer Bazar Road, near DDA Park, D-Block, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi and he prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW17/E of the place of occurrence at the instance of accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa. That thereafter, medical examination of the accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa was got conducted at the BSA Hospital. He further deposed that on the next day, he produced the accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa before the Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Court sent him to JC.
He further deposed that on 23.12.2016, he collected age related certified documents of the CCL from his first attended school. Photocopy of notice U/s 91 CrPC address to Principal Government, MCD School, J Block, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi is marked as Mark N and age related documents of the CCL Tej Pal Singh of Government, North MCD School, J Block, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi is marked as Mark M. He further deposed that on 24.12.2016, he obtained the NBWs of other co accused Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu @ Commando @ Mahender (since deceased). That thereafter, he deposited MLC of victim Ravi @ Kartar Singh in the BSA Hospital for obtaining the opinion on the MLC. Later on he received the MLC from the hospital after concerned doctor mentioned the nature of injury on the MLC of Ravi @ Kartar Singh. Thereafter, he again deposited the MLC of Ravi @ Kartar Singh and knife for obtaining the subsequent opinion regarding Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:07:22 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 20 of 40 -:21:- the injury. Later on he received the subsequent opinion in this regard from the Forensic Department of BSA Hospital, Delhi. Thereafter, he had obtained the process U/s 82 CrPC of accused Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu @ Commando @ Mahender (since deceased) and filed relevant applications before the Court in this regard.
He further deposed that on 05.05.2017, the Court had declared accused Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu @ Commando @ Mahender (since deceased) as proclaimed offenders and the relevant order of Ms. Kadambari Avasthi, Ld. MM, North, Delhi dated 05.05.2017 is Ex. PW19/B. That thereafter, he deposited the relevant exhibits in the present case in the FSL, Rohini, Delhi. Later on, he obtained results on the said exhibits from the FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide DNA report is Ex. PW18/A. He further deposed that on 08.01.2018, accused Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu @ Commando @ Mahender (since deceased) surrendered before the Court and he formally arrested accused Daler Singh @ Bunty vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/A and accused Sonu @ Commando @ Mahender (since deceased) vide arrest memo Ex. PW19/C after getting permission from the Hon'ble Court. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statements of accused Daler Singh @ Bunty Ex. PW19/D and accused Sonu @ Commando @ Mahender Ex. PW19/E. He further deposed that he obtained one day PC remand of both the abovesaid accused persons from the Hon'ble Court. That he Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:07:28 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 21 of 40 -:22:- alongwith Ct. Vikas, Rishi Raj and both the accused persons went to the place of occurrence i.e. Veer Bazar Road, near DDA Park, D-Block, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi. That he prepared the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence at the instance of both the accused persons Ex. PW15/B. He further deposed that they also searching the weapon of offence near ganda nala, Sector-17, Rohini but we failed to find out the same.
He further deposed that on 09.02.2018, both the accused persons had produced before the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court sent them in JC.
He has also identified the knife/chopper Ex.P1, blood stained baniyan/waist of red colour Ex.P2 and the photographs Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/A5.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
4. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa and and Daler Singh was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.05.2024 wherein they denied all the evidence put to them and stated that they have falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials in connivance with the complainant of the case and all the proceedings were conducted by the IO while sitting in the PS and documents and pen driver which are made exhibits in the present case by the police officials are all forged and manipulated in order to falsely implicate them in the present case. They further stated that they never gave any disclosure statement, rather their signatures were obtained by the Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. 06:07:33 +0530 Page No. 22 of 40 -:23:- police forcibly on several blank papers which were later converted into indiscriminate documents against them to falsely implicate them in the present case. They further stated that they were never arrested at the place and manner as shown by the prosecution and no such incident ever took place and they are not involved in any manner in the present case.
Accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
5. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
6. I have heard Mr. Nishant Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by Mr. S.P. Dhankar, ld. Counsel for the complainant and Mr. Raghav Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for both accused persons.
7. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that the allegations levelled against the accused persons are of serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case vide the testimony of complainant, PW3, who was the material witness/complainant.
The testimony of PW3 has supported by the testimony of PW4 and buttressed with medical evidence.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 2024.08.16 06:07:39 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 23 of 40 -:24:- cannot be disbelieved.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Raghav Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for both accused persons have argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated. Further, testimony of police witnesses cannot be relied upon. It was also argued that the weapon of offence i.e. the knife has been falsely planted upon the accused and that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further argued that the injury if any is simple in nature and ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not made out. That CCTV footage is doctored as the main DVR has not been seized and the pen drive in which the footage was procured has not been sent to FSL. That there was no face sketch which has been prepared by the IO and it is highly doubtful as to how the IO had identified the accused persons to be present in the CCTV footage. Accordingly, both the accused persons deserve acquittal.
9. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
10. It is pertinent to mention that proceedings qua accused Sonu @ Commando @ Mahender stands abated vide order dated 12.04.2018.
Accused persons namely Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 2024.08.16 06:07:45 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 24 of 40 -:25:- and Daler Singh @ Bunty had been charged for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
11. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under :
SECTION 307 IPC "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."
SECTION 34 IPC "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
12. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 06:07:51 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 25 of 40 -:26:- Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.Digitally signed by SHEFALI
SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:07:56 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 26 of 40 -:27:- MATERIAL WITNESS
14. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW3 complainant Kartar Singh.
Testimony of the complainant/victim PW3 Kartar Singh is as under:
"I am residing at the aforesaid address alongwith my family. I am a working as a welder.
On 08.12.2016, I alongwith my friend Kishan had gone to Veer Bazar to fetch the vegetables at about 7:00 pm. At Veer Bazar, accused Mufa @ Mandeep Singh met me, who resides at Sardar Colony at gali no.5 and he abused me and stated to me that around 1 - 1 ½ years back, his brother given beatings to me. I objected to accused Mandeep for not abusing me and he left from there.
After some time, while me and Kishan were purchasing vegetables, accused Mandeep Singh, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) came there alongwith his brothers Bhuggi, Bunty, Commando (since expired). Accused Daler Singh @ Bunty is also present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) and they started giving beatings to me. I was stabbed with knife, which was used for cutting the meat by accused Mandeep @ Mufa on my head and Bhuggi had taken out the knife and handed over to Commando and Commando also stabbed the knife on my head. Accused Daler Singh @ Bunty had also attacked me with a knife and struck knife blows over my head.
During this process, my friend Kishan tried to rescue me and requested the accused and his associates to leave me "chhod do isse mat maaro" and thereafter both the accused persons, who are is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) alongwith their associates left the spot after Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 06:08:02 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 27 of 40 -:28:- assaulting me with knives and I fell. My parents were called by my friend Kishan and I was removed to Ambedkar Hospital by PCR van, where I was medically treated. Accused Mandeep, Daler Singh @ Bunty alongwith his cousins Commando and Bhuggi assaulted me with knives with the intention to kill me.
Police came at hospital and made inquires from me and recorded my statement Ex. PW3/A and same was read over and explained to me and after finding it to be the correct, I signed the same at point A. Accused Tejpal Singh @ Bhuggi is JCL. So far as I remember today, my blood stained clothes were seized by the treating doctors. I can identify my said blood stained clothes and knives used by the accused persons in assaulting me, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC (M) has produced the case property. Parcel no. 3 sealed with the seal of court is opened. The same is found containing one big knife / chopper. The same is shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same as already Ex. P1 being used by the accused persons at the time of commission of offence upon him. At this stage, one pulanda sealed with the seal of FSL is opened. The same is opened and found containing one plastic container containing one blood stained waist / baniyan of red colour. The same is shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same as Ex. P2 which he was wearing at the time of occurrence."
The prosecution vide the testimony of PW3 has proved that he along with his friend Krishna @ Kishan Singh were abused by Mandeep Singh @ Mufa and after sometime, he along with cousin Daler Singh @ Bunty, Commando @ Sonu and Tejpal Singh @ Buggi came back with knives in their hands Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:08:09 +0530 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 28 of 40 -:29:- and all of a sudden on the instigation of accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa, one of his cousin i.e. accused Daler Singh @ Bunty attacked on the head of the complainant with knife and subsequently accused Commando @ Sonu and Mandeep Singh @ Mufa also attacked the complainant on his head with knives. During the process, friend of the complainant namely Krishan tried to rescue him and the complainant was taken to Ambedkar Hospital where his MLC was prepared and he was questioned by the police officials, who recorded his statement.
He categorically proved that he was stabbed with a knife which is used for cutting meat, by accused Mandeep @ Mufa on his head and accused Daler Singh @ Bunty also attacked him with a knife and struck knife blows over his head. Thus, the said witness has narrated and proved the manner of the act committed by the accused persons.
The accused persons were categorically identified by the said witness.
At this stage, it imperative to take note of the law related to the testimony of an injured, who is a witness. Reliance is placed upon Abdul Sayed Vs. State of M.P. decided on 14.09.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it is held as under:
"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 in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:08:15 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 29 of 40 -:30:- 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."
In State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors (2011) 4 SCC 324, it is held as under:
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence."
The above mentioned observations are also reiterated in the latest case of Khema @ Khem Chandra Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 1200-1202 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8624-8626 of 2019, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:08:21 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 30 of 40 -:31:- special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. There is nothing to suggest that his version is concocted or that he has falsely implicated the accused. Rather, testimony of PW3 is consistent, cogent and probable and he categorically proved the manner of commission of the crime and factum of injuries sustained.
15. Moving forward, I shall now delve upon the testimony of other material witnesses.
OTHER MATERIAL WITNESSES
16. PW4 Krishan proved that accused Mufa @ Mandeep came there and was accompanied by accused Daler Singh @ Bunty, present in court today (correctly identified) and was also accompanied by Sonu @ Commando (since expired) and by one boy namely Bhuggi. Accused Mandeep @ Mufa, Daler Singh @ Bunty and Sonu were armed with knives. They all cornered his friend Kartar Singh @ Ravi and started assaulting him with knives. The accused persons caused 7-8 knives blows over the head of his friend Kartar Singh. He tried to rescue his friend and pleaded to the accused persons but they had not heard of him.
After causing injuries to Kartar Singh, all the accused persons managed to run away. He and his Mami made a call at 100 number and PCR van came there and took Kartar Singh @ Ravi Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 06:08:27 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 31 of 40 -:32:- to hospital where he was medically examined. Witness has identified the said knife as Ex. P1, which was being used by accused Daler Singh @ Bunty at the time of commission of offence.
PW13 Surat Singh proved he had installed one CCTV camera in the staircases in front of his house. That during the course of investigation of the present case, IO SI Satender had requested him for providing CCTV footage of the said camera dated 08.12.2016 between 7:15 pm to 7:30 pm. That on the request of IO, he had installed the said CCTV footage in a pen drive and handed over the said pen drive to IO. That IO had seized the said pen drive vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/A. He further proved that he had also handed over one certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW13/B but not able to identify the said pen drive.
IO PW19 SI Satender Kumar further proved that on 10.12.2016, he reached at H. No. C-2/198, Second Floor, Sector- 16, Rohini, Delhi where CCTV camera was installed in abovesaid house and he checked the CCTV footage and found that accused persons were visible going towards place of incident and returned back from the place of incident in the CCTV footage. That he had obtained the CCTV footage for the period of 07:15 pm to 07:30 pm dated 08.12.2016 in the pen drive alongwith certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act. He has proved the seizure memo of pen drive CCTV footage as Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:08:32 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 32 of 40 -:33:- Ex.PW13/A and certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW13/B. The Pen drive Ex. P-2 was played on the court computer and after seeing the CCTV footage, PW19 SI Satender recognized and identified the movement of 04 accused persons in the present FIR at 19:20:03 and 19:24:27.
CCTV FOOTAGE
17. It was vehemently argued by ld. Counsel for accused that the main DVR had not been seized and the pen drive in which the footage was procured had not been sent FSL for further investigation and verifying the authenticity. No face sketch had been prepared and it was argued by ld. Counsel how the IO had then identified the accused persons to be present in the CCTV footage.
At this stage, it is pertinent to note the testimony of PW13 Surat Singh from whom the CCTV footage had been procured, who was the owner of the house and has been examined by the prosecution. In his cross examination, he has completely denied that there was any tampering in CCTV footage at the time of downloading the same in the pen drive which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. The certificate under Section 65B was also proved by the said witness Ex.PW13/B bearing his signature at point A. Even if, it is assumed that the CCTV footage is tampered with even then, it is not the only conclusive piece of evidence and thus, cannot Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:08:39 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 33 of 40 -:34:- completely shattered the case of the prosecution in the wake of the unrebutted testimony of the injured himself, who categorically identified the accused persons.
Further, the IO in his cross examination has categorically proved that before his seizing the CCTV footage, one beat constable Sandeep of the area had gone who identified the accused persons and informed about the footage and after seizing the same, the same was shown to the complainant (Kartar Singh/injured) who identified the accused persons.
18. As such, the Court now proceed to delve upon other material evidence.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
19. Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini has proved that on 08.12.2016, he examined the patient Ravi 24 years male vide MLC No. 15770 vide his observation from portion X to X1 on Ex.PW2/A. He further proved that on 13.01.2017, he gave his opinion qua nature of injury as "simple" on the MLC Ex.PW2/B. I have perused the said MLC. Following were the injuries which were inflicted upon the injured:
(i) Laceration on the nape of the neck around 12cm X 5cm along with active bleeding;
(ii) Laceration on the forehead 10cm X 2cm extending into frontal region and the injured was referred for surgery Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:08:47 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 34 of 40 -:35:- The nature of injury was opined as simple vide opinion dated 13.01.2017 bearing the signature of concerned Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini at point A. PW1 Dr. Vijay Dhankar further proved that he gave an opinion regarding injuries sustained by one Ravi @ Kartar Singh, aged about 24 years male on 08.12.2016. He further proved that the injured was examined at BSA Hospital vide MLC No. 15770/16 with E number 287004 dated 08.12.2016. That the copy of MLC and the alleged weapon of offence (knife) in a sealed pulanda was submitted along with the request. Seals was found intact. He further proved that he prepared the sketch of knife and gave his opinion Ex. PW1/A and in his opinion, injury mentioned in the MLC could be caused by the weapon examined.
He categorically proved that the injuries mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW2/B, could be caused by the weapon which was examined (knife). It is pertinent to mention that none of the doctors had been cross examined by ld. Counsels for the accused persons despite due opportunity and by no stretch the said injuries could be considered to be self inflicted.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE I.E. KNIFE
20. PW17 ASI Bijender Dhama He further proved that the accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa led them to H. No. J-216, Gali No. 5, Sardar Colony, Sector 16, Rohini Delhi at the ground floor where bed was lying. He further proved that accused produced one knife meant for cutting of meat and the said knife was Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 06:08:52 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 35 of 40 -:36:- measured by the IO. He further proved that IO prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW17/B. The said knife was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/C. He further proved that accused led them to the scene of crime and pointed out the same and IO prepared the pointing out memo the scene of crime Ex. PW17/E. He has also identified the case property i.e. knife Ex. P1, as recovered at the instance of accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa.
As per the prosecution story, the knife used in the offence had been recovered from accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa from his house from beneath the bed in his room. The same was proved as Ex.P1.
It was argued by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the recovery of the said knife has been planted upon the accused persons and that the recovery as such is a weak piece of evidence.
But in the present case, the place from where the knife was recovered was easily accessible to the public and was in the special knowledge of accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa.
In the wake of the unflinching testimony of the injured supported by the medical records and opinion of the concerned doctor that the injury could be caused by the said weapon of offence, the argument raised by ld. Counsel does not seem to hold much force that the recovery was planted.Digitally signed by SHEFALI
SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:08:57 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 36 of 40 -:37:- POLICE WITNESSES
21. Police witnesses further buttressed the testimony of PW3 and PW4.
Police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelived and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the multiple injuries have been caused to the injured Kartar Singh @ Ravi by the accused persons.
22. At this stage, the moot point of consideration is that whether the offence U/s 307 IPC is attracted or not.
Section 307, IPC reads as under:
'307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is 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.Digitally signed
SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 06:09:03 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 37 of 40 -:38:- Illustrations
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section.
(d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping;
A has not yet committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servants to place it on Z's table.
A has committed the offence defined in this section.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non- conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that '...The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.16 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg 06:09:09 +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 38 of 40 -:39:- mentioned in the section.' The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction The same has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life- threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, 'The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.
23. In the present case from the sequence of events as narrated by the injured and his testimony being supported by PW4 buttressed by the medical evidence it transpires that there was multiple stab injuries and wounds on the vital part of the body i.e. the head, neck and with a sharp edged weapon by the accused persons. The multiple and repeated injuries are on the vital part of the body and although the same were simple but cannot be said that the accused did not have the intention or the knowledge that such repeated injuries with a sharp edged weapon could have caused death. There was pre mediation and prior meeting of minds and they kept causing injuries till the injured had fallen down. It cannot be said to be sudden or on provocation Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.08.16 06:09:14 SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg +0530 State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 39 of 40 -:40:- since when PW4 tried to intervene even then, the accused persons did not stop and thus, from the surrounding circumstances and the evidence on record, it can be clearly inferred that ingredients of Section 307/34 IPC are squarely made out.
CONCLUSION
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Mandeep Singh @ Mufa and Daler Singh @ Bunty are convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC
25. Copy of the judgment running into 40 pages be provided to the accused free of cost.
26. Matter be listed for filing of affidavits on 09.09.2024. In the meanwhile, the convict and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State are directed to file their respective affidavits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Karan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020 decided on 27.11.2020. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.16 06:09:20 +0530 Dictated and announced (Shefali Sharma) in the open Court on 16.08.2024 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 40 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 168/17, FIR No. 1009/2016 PS KNK Marg State Vs. Mandeep Singh @ Mufa Etc. Page No. 40 of 40