Delhi District Court
State vs Kishan@Krishan on 4 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 94/2021 FIR No. 84/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-001138-2021 PS: Anand Parbat
U/s: 307 IPC
State
versus
Kishan @ Krishan
S/o. Sh. Raju Meena
R/o. H. No. 737, Street No. 14
Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
Date of filing of Chargesheet
before Metropolitan Magistrate : 29.12.2020
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 08.02.2021
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 29.05.2026
Date of judgment : 04.07.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Kishan @ Krishan has been arraigned for trial
on the charge that on 21.04.2019, at about 10:00 P.M. at H. No.
572, Gali No. 14, Nehru Nagar on the road, he stabbed
victim/complainant Deepak Kumar with a broken bottle of
Whisky on the vital parts of his body including the neck which
injury was opined as grievous in nature with such intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act had
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 1 of 34
caused the death of Deepak Kumar, he would have been guilty of
committing the offence of culpable homicide amounting to
murder, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
(for brevity, ‘IPC‘).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as scripted in the
chargesheet is that on 22.04.2019, upon receiving DD No. 22A
from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, one Deepak (PW-5) had been
taken to the hospital by his brother and PCR staff, HC Ashok
(PW-15) along with Constable Naveen (PW-12) went to Acharya
Bhikshu, Hospital Delhi, where the victim, Deepak Kumar (PW-5)
was found under treatment, bleeding from neck was active and
Deepak (PW-5) was not fit to give statement vide MLC No.
46800/2019. Thereafter, Deepak (PW-5) was referred to
Safdarjung Hospital where after getting some treatment at about
03.46 p.m. injured Deepak (PW-5) was declared fit for statement
and got his statement recorded to HC Ashok (PW-15).
3. On the basis of the statement of injured Deepak (PW-5) and
the MLC, HC Ashok (PW-15) prepared the rukka and sent it to the
Police Station for registration of FIR under Section 324 IPC. After
getting the case registered, IO recorded the statement of the
Shyam Singh @ Ramu (PW-1) and other witnesses, inspected the
spot, prepared site plan at the instance of Shyam Singh @ Ramu
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 2 of 34
(PW-1) and seized the exhibits. Thereafter, on 23.04.2019, the
accused was arrested and identified by Shyam Singh @ Ramu
(PW-1) and after interrogation his disclosure statement was
recorded and he was released on police bail.
4. Later on, doctor opined the injury as suffered by Deepak
(PW-5) as “dangerous” and after discussion with the senior officer
Section 324 IPC was replaced with Section 307 IPC and further
investigation of this case was marked to SI Shiv Parkash (PW-17)
and on 30.09.2020, accused was re-arrested, his blood sample was
taken, all the exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL.
5. On completion of investigation, the chargesheet under
Sections 307 IPC was filed. On taking cognizance, the accused
was summoned to face trial after compliance with Section 207
Cr.P.C. The case was committed for trial to this Court.
THE CHARGE
6. The charge under Sections 307 was put to the accused, to
which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined
seventeen witnesses. The names of the witnesses and their
description is furnished hereunder in tabular form:
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 3 of 34
Prosecution Witnesses Description
PW-1 - Shyam Singh Who took the injured to the
hospital.
PW-2 - Retired SI Ramesh Proved DD No. 7A dated
Kumar 22.04.2019 Ex. PW-2/A
PW-3 - HC Balvinder Singh Who took the injured to the
hospital.
PW-4 – ASI Praveen Sambyal Proved FIR No. 84/2019 Ex. PW-
4/A, endorsement on the rukka
Ex. PW-4/B and certificate under
Section 65B of Indian Evidence
Act Ex. PW-4/C
PW-5 – Deepak Kumar Complainant / injured
PW-6 – Dr. Kamakshi Kharb- Who took blood samples of the
and, Junior resident, Dr.RML complainant / injured and proved
Hospital, New Delhi MLC in this regard Ex. PW-6/A
PW-7 -ASI D. G. Waghmare Proved the road certificate Ex.
PW-7/B, acknowledgment by
FSL Ex. PW-7/A and the relevant
entry in register No. 19 Ex. PW-
7/C
PW-8 - HC Hazari Lal Accompanied the IO at the time
of arrest of the accused and
proved arrest memo and
disclosure statement of the
accused Ex. PW-8/A and PW-8/B
PW-9 - HC Shailesh Kumar Proved the road certificate Ex.
PW-9/B, acknowledgment by
FSL, Rohini Ex. PW-9/C and
relevant entry in register No. 19
Ex. PW-9/A and PW-9/D
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 4 of 34
PW-10 - HC Rajvir Singh Who deposited the exhibits in the
FSL
PW-11- Constable Doola Ram He took the complainant to Dr.
RML Hospital for obtaining his
blood sample, which was taken
and seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-11/A
PW-12 - HC Naveen Assisted the IO in the
investigation and proved personal
search memo of the accused Ex.
PW-12/A
PW-13 – Dr. Hirdesh Kumar- He deposed on behalf of
Incharge, Casualty, Acharya Dr.Shajid Hussain who prepared
Bhikshu Hospital, Delhi. the MLC of the injured (PW-5)
Ex. PW-13/A.
PW-14 – Dr. Irshad Hussain He deposed on behalf of Dr.Rahul
Senior Medical Officer Hussain who examined the
Department of Surgery, injured (PW-5) in department of
Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, surgery and opined nature of
Delhi. injury as “dangerous” on the
MLC Ex. PW-13/A
PW-15 ASI Ashok Kumar 1st IO of the case
PW-16 Manish Gupta, Junior He prepared the FSL report Ex.
Forensic Chemical Examiner PW-16/A and allelic data Ex.
(Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. PW-16/B
PW-17 Inspector Shiv Prakash 2nd IO of the case who filed the
chargesheet
8. The prosecution closed its evidence vide order dated
10.12.2025.
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 5 of 34
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
9. On the closing of the prosecution evidence, the
incriminating facts and circumstances appearing on record, were
put to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all
allegations levelled against him and submitted that he wants to
lead evidence in his defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. No evidence was led on behalf of the accused despite
opportunity granted and the defence evidence was closed vide
order dated 04.02.2026.
EVIDENCE OF INJURED/COMPLAINANT
11. Prosecution examined the injured/complainant Deepak
Kumar (PW-5) who testified that in the year 2019, he was residing
at H. No. 572, of Shambhu’s house Gali No. 14, Nehru Nagar,
Delhi, Anand Parbat. The occurrence is of 21.04.2019. He had
returned back home from his work at about 9.00 p.m. The accused
who was his neighbour also came there. They both had gone to
liquor shop and purchased two quarters of liquor and they started
consuming the same on the roof of the room. On the same day at
about 10.00 p.m. after consuming liquor, the accused started
abusing him. Deepak Kumar (PW-5) asked the accused not to
abuse and the accused in anger picked up one empty liquor bottle
lying there, broke the same and assaulted him on left side of his
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 6 of 34
neck, consequently he fell down and raised alarm. On his alarm,
his brother namely, Shyam Singh @ Ramu (PW-1) came there and
took him to the PCR van and, thereafter, had gone to Acharya
Bhikshu Hospital from where he was referred to another Hospital
for further treatment. His statement (Ex. PW-5/A) was recorded
by police officials. After about 6 months, he had gone to the
hospital where doctor had taken his blood samples. He identified
the accused in the Court.
11.1 In his cross-examination, Deepak Kumar (PW-5) has
deposed that at the time of occurrence, he was working as a
labourer. He came in contact with the accused for about 6-7
months and they became friend. He used to take liquor with the
accused occasionally. No family members were present near the
spot. The house where he used to reside was a three storeyed
building. He had not consumed liquor on that day, prior to
purchasing the liquor. They had not become out of control after
taking liquor. After consuming the liquor, the accused had started
abusing him but not prior to that. The occurrence had taken place
at about 10.00 p.m. His brother also reached there at that time
after hearing his alarm. His brother was residing with him in his
room situated on third floor. He was in full sense till his brother
shifted him in the PCR Van. He regained consciousness on the
next day and he was inquired by the police officials. His statement
(Ex.PW-5/A) was recorded by the IO in the hospital. He was not
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 7 of 34
taken to the spot by the IO. No quarrel had taken place between
him and the accused prior to that day. He admitted that they had
consumed both the quarters of liquor. He denied all the
suggestions given to him by Ld. counsel for the accused.
OTHER PUBLIC WITNESSES
12. Prosecution examined Shyam Singh @ Raju (PW-1) who
deposed that on 21.04.2009, at about 9 p.m. he was cooking food.
He identified the accused who was residing in their
neighbourhood. While cooking, he found that the accused came to
their room to meet his brother Deepak (PW-5), and thereafter
started talking with his brother Deepak (PW-5). Thereafter, the
accused and his brother Deepak (PW-5) went downstairs. After
some time accused and his brother Deepak (PW-5) returned back
after purchasing liquor. Thereafter, the accused and his brother
Deepak (PW-5) went to the roof of their tenanted premises
situated at fourth floor for consuming liquor. He waited upto
10.00 p.m. so that his brother Deepak (PW-5) come downstairs
and take dinner. He heard noises of his brother and the abusive
language being used by the accused, and he heard a loud noise of
his brother Deepak (PW-5), and upon hearing the said noise he
went upstairs and saw his brother (PW-5) lying in the pool of
blood and was bleeding profusely from his neck. By that time
accused Kishan had already ran away. He immediately brought
his brother Deepak (PW-5) downstairs and took him towards the
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 8 of 34
hospital after lifting him on his shoulder. When he reached at near
Railway Fatak Prem nagar, he saw PCR van stationed there. On
his request the PCR officials took his injured brother Deepak
(PW-5) to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and got him admitted in the
said hospital. From the said hospital, his brother Deepak (PW-5)
was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. During the late night hours,
police officials visited the said Hospital but he could not met them
as he was busy in the treatment of his brother Deepak (PW-5). On
the next date, police officials met him in the hospital and he
accompanied them to place of occurrence from where IO lifted the
blood sample, two plastic glasses, broken quarter bottle, blood
stained mat (Chatai) pair of slippers of his brother Deepak and
seized the same through seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A. He also
signed the said memo. Thereafter, he accompanied the police
officials for the search of the accused. On his identification, police
apprehended and arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B.
12.1 In his cross-examination, Shyam Singh @ Raju (PW-1)
admitted that he has not seen the occurrence and that in his
presence, the accused had not assaulted his brother Deepak. He
denied all the other suggestions given to him by ld. counsel for the
accused.
13. HC Balvinder Singh (PW-3) has deposed that on
21.04.2019, he was posted in PCR West Zone and was on duty as
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 9 of 34
InCharge of PCR Van and on 22.04.2019 at about 12.40 midnight,
he was present at Prem Nagar Fatak with his PCR Van. At the
same time, one person came to him with his brother, who was in
injured condition and was bleeding. He was requested by that
person to remove his injured brother to hospital. He immediately
took the injured and his brother to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and
got admitted the injured in the hospital vide MLC No. 24971.
Subsequently he came to know the name of the injured as Deepak
(PW-5) and name of his brother who had brought him to me as
Shyam Singh (PW-1) and the injured was assaulted by a bottle
glass (kaanch) by his friend.
INVESTIGATION
14. Retired SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-2) has deposed that on
22.04.2019, at about 1.22.08 Hours, he received an information
from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital regarding the admission of
Deepak (PW-5) in the said Hospital by his brother Shyam Singh
(PW-1) and he recorded DD No. 7A (Ex.PW-2/A) and handed
over the copy of said DD to HC Ashok (PW-15) with instructions
to immediately visit the said Hospital.
15. ASI Praveen Sambyal (PW-4) has deposed that on
22.04.2019, Ct. Naveen came to the PS with rukka sent by HC
Ashok Kumar (PW-15) for registration of FIR under Section. 324
IPC. On the basis of the same, the present FIR Ex. PW-4/A was
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 10 of 34
registered. He made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW-4/B .
He proved the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence
Act Ex. PW-4/C.
16. ASI D. G. Waghmare (PW-7) has deposed that on
23.04.2019, he deposited one sealed parcel handed over by HC
Ashok (PW-15) in the Malkhana and entered the details in
Register No. 19 at serial No. 1943. Again on 28.12.2020, the
sealed parcel mentioned in item No. 1942 alongwith the sample
seal deposited in the present case, was handed over Head
Constable Rajvir Singh (PW-10) to deposit the same at FSL
through Road Certificate No. 118/21/2020 dated 28.12.2020 Ex.
PW-7/B. HC Rajvir Singh (PW-10) handed him back the
acknowledgment receipt issued by FSL Rohini in lieu of deposit
of case property Ex. PW-7/A. He proved the relevant portion in
register No. 19 vide Ex. PW-7/C.
17. HC Hazari Lal (PW-8) has deposed that on 30.09.2020, he
alongwith Sub Inspector Prakash (PW-17) and Head Constable
Ashok (PW-15) apprehended and arrested the accused afresh in
this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW-8/A after substitution of
offence under Section 307 IPC in place of 324 IPC. IO recorded
the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW-8/B.
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 11 of 34
18. Head Constable Shailesh Kumar (PW-9) has deposed that
on 23.04.2019, he was working as MHC(M) and IO/Head
Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-15) deposited case property i.e.
plastic cot, a broken water bottle of liquor, one plastic Chatahi and
one pair of slipper vide entry No. 2357 in register No. 19.
Relevant portion of entry running into one page is Ex. PW-9/A.
On 28.12.2020, he handed over case property to Constable Rajvir
(PW-10) for depositing the same with FSL Rohini vide RC N0.
118/21/2020 Ex. PW-9/B. Constable Rajvir (PW-10) handed over
acknowledgment Ex. PW-9/C (OSR) issued by FSL to him after
depositing the case property with FSL. On 23.10.2020, Head
Constable Ashok (PW-15) handed over him one sealed parcel
stated to be containing the blood sample of Deepak Kumar (PW-
5), which he deposited in the Malkhana after making entry in
register No. 19 vide entry No. 2357 vide Ex. PW-9/D.
19. Head Constable Rajvir Singh (PW-10) has deposed that
on 28.12.2020, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat. On the same
day, on directions of IO/SI Shiv Prakash (PW-17) he collected
two parcels in sealed condition through RC No. 118/21/2020 Ex.
PW-9/B. Sample seals also given and as directed by IO, he had
taken the case properties to the FSL and deposited the same there.
He handed back receiving copy of RC PW-9/B and
acknowledgment issued by FSL Ex. PW-9/C.
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 12 of 34
20. Constable Doola Ram (PW-11) has deposed that on
23.10.2020, he alongwith complainant Deepak (PW-5) and HC
Ashok (PW-15) had gone to Dr. RML Hospital. Doctor took the
blood sample of injured Deepak (PW-5) and handed over the same
in sealed condition alongwith sample seal on separate paper which
were taken into police possession by HC Ashok (PW-15) through
seizure memo Ex. PW-11/A which he had signed as a witness.
21. Head Constable Naveen (PW-12) has deposed that in the
intervening night of 21/22.04.2019, at about 1.30 am, on receipt of
DD No. 7A, he alongwith HC Ashok (PW-15) went to Acharya
Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar. IO/PW-15 collected the MLC of
injured Deepak (PW-5) and it was revealed that Deepak had been
referred to Safdarjung Hospital. Accordingly, they reached
Safdarjung Hospital where Deepak was found under treatment.
Doctor declared him unfit for statement. HC Ashok (PW-15)
searched for other eye witnesses but nobody met and they returned
to the PS. Again, they reached Safdarjung Hospital at about 7.30
am. At that time, doctor declared injured Deepak (PW-5) fit for
statement. IO recorded statement (Ex. PW-5/A) of injured Deepak
(PW-5), prepared rukka Ex. PW-15/A and handed over him with
direction to get the FIR registered. HC Parveen handed over to
him copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate under Section 65-B
of Indian Evidence Act. He reached the spot i.e. near H. No. 572,
Gali No.14, Nehru Nagar and handed over the above documents to
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 13 of 34
the IO/HC Ashok (PW-15). They searched for the accused but the
accused was not found. His statement was recorded by the IO HC
Ashok Kumar (PW-15). Again on 23.04.2019 he joined
investigation with HC Ashok (PW-15) and reached the spot
mentioned above where one person namely Shyam Singh brother
of complainant (PW-1) met them. Shyam Singh (PW-1) took
them on the roof top and got recovered one blood stained mat, two
plastic glass, one wine bottle in broken condition and one pair of
slippers of white colour which were converted into parcels and
seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A, IO prepared site plan Ex.
PW-15/B with the assistance of Shyam Singh (PW-1). Thereafter,
he alongwith HC Ashok (PW-15) and Shyam Singh (PW-1)
searched the accused who was apprehended, arrested and his
personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-1/B and Ex.
PW-12/A respectively.
22. ASI Ashok Kumar (PW-15) has deposed that on
22.04.2019, GD No. 7A Ex. PW-2/A was assigned to him which
was regarding stabbing. He alongwith Ct. Naveen (PW-12) had
gone to Acharya Shree Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar where it
was revealed there that the injured Deepak Singh (PW-5) was
examined vide MLC Ex. PW-13/A and the patient was further
referred to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment. He collected the
MLC but no eyewitness was found present in the hospital.
Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Naveen reached Safdarjung Hospital
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 14 of 34
and injured Deepak (PW-5) was found to be admitted in Surgery
Department and was unfit for statement. No eyewitness was
found present there. He searched for the brother of injured who
was stated to have present but he was also not found present there.
He returned to the PS and on 22.04.2019 again visited Safdarjung
Hospital where doctor declared injured fit for statement. He
recorded the statement of injured Ex. PW-5/A. On the basis of
statement, MLC and other circumstances, he prepared rukka Ex.
PW-15/A for offence under Section 324 IPC and handed over to
Ct. Naveen (PW-12) for registration of FIR. Ct. Naveen (PW-12)
handed him the copy of FIR Ex. PW-4A, rukka Ex. PW-15/A and
certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.
PW-4/B. On 23.04.2019, eyewitness Shyam Singh brother of
complainant (PW-1) met him, who took them to the spot i.e. the
roof top of the house No. 572, Gali No.14, Nehru Nagar, Anand
Parbat, Delhi and got recovered articles. He converted the same in
parcel and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW-1/A, prepared site
plan with the assistance of Shyam Singh Ex. PW-15/B. He further
deposed that on the same day, at about 4.00 pm, on the
identification of witness Shyam Singh (PW-1), the accused
present in the Court was arrested from near the spot, his personal
search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-12/A,
he made disclosure statement vide Ex. PW-15/C. The accused was
released on bail as the offence was bailable. He recorded the
statement of Shyam Singh (PW-1) and Ct. Naveen (PW-12). He
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 15 of 34
deposited the case property in the Malkhana. On 31.05.2019, he
deposited the MLC for opinion in the hospital and on 06.10.2019,
doctor opined the injury sustained by Deepak (PW-5) as
‘Dangerous’. Thereafter, after discussion with senior officer
Section 307 IPC was substituted in the case in place of Section
324 IPC and the further investigation of the case was marked to SI
Shiv Prakash.
22.1 ASI Ashok Kumar (PW-15) has further deposed that on
30.09.2020, he joined investigation with IO/SI Shiv Prakash (PW-
17) and Ct. Hazari Lal (PW-8) when accused was re-arrested vide
arrest memo Ex. PW-15/D, his personal search was conducted and
he made disclosure statement vide memos Ex. PW-8/A and Ex.
PW-8/B respectively. On 23.10.2020, he had taken injured Deepak
(PW-5) to RML Hospital where his blood sample was taken by the
doctor and doctor handed him the blood sample in sealed
condition along with sample seal which he seized vide seizure
memo Ex. PW-11/A. He identified the articles.
22.2 In his cross-examination, ASI Ashok Kumar (PW-15) has
deposed that he reached the Acharya Bhikshu Hospital at about
2.00 am and at about 3.00 am at Safdarjung Hospital. He returned
to the PS at about 4.15/4.30 am. No public persons met him on
the spot as it was wee hour. The occurrence had taken place on on
third floor of a three storeyed building, even brother of injured
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 16 of 34
Shyam Singh (PW-1) did not meet him at that time. Accused was
apprehended from his house at the identification of witness Shyam
(PW-1).
23. Inspector Shiv Prakash (PW-17) has deposed that on
16.10.2019, further investigation of this case was assigned to him
from the previous IO HC Ashok Kumar as Section 307 IPC was
added in the file. He made search of accused to re-arrest him in
this case. On 30.09.2020, accused was found present in his house.
He was informed about the facts of case and then he was re-
arrested in this case. Accused was got medically examined in
RML Hospital, produced before the Court and was remanded to
judicial custody by the Court.
23.1 Inspector Shiv Prakash (PW-17) has further deposed that on
23.10.2020, blood sample of complainant Deepak (PW-1) was
taken in the hospital by doctor. HC Ashok (PW-15) collected the
sealed parcel containing blood sample of complainant and seized
the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. HC Ashok (PW-15)
handed over this sealed parcel along with MLC of complainant
and seizure memo of blood sample to him. On 28.12.2020, all the
sealed exhibits of this case were sent to FSL. Thereafter, on
completion of investigation he filed charge sheet of this case in the
Court. On 27.01.2022, he filed FSL result of this case in the Court
with application Ex. PW17/A. He identified the accused in the
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 17 of 34
Court today.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
24. Dr. Kamakshi Kharbanda, Junior Resident, Dr.RML
Hospital, New Delhi (PW-6) has deposed that on 23.10.2020 at
about 3.25 p.m., one Deepak Kumar (PW-5), son of Shiv Ram
Singh male was brought to Dr. RML Hospital in Casualty by
police officials for obtaining blood sample. She collected the
blood sample in vial and sealed with the seal of hospital and
handed over the same to the police officials and prepared the MLC
Ex. PW-6/A in this regard.
25. Dr. Hirdesh Kumar Incharge Casualty, Acharya
Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi (PW-13) has
deposed on behalf of Dr. Shajid Hussain that he has seen the
original MLC Ex. PW-13/A of injured Deepak Singh (PW-5) who
was brought in the hospital by police officials. The patient was
initially examined by Dr. Shajid Hasan and as per said MLC, on
local examination, following fresh injuries were found on the
person of injured which was mentioned in MLC also :
1. CLW measuring 7 x 1 x 2 cm below left angle mendible i.e.
lower jaw portion.
2. CLW on left lower abdomen each measuring 2 x .2 x .1 cm.
After examination, he was referred to Department of
Surgery for further management, As per MLC, injured Deepak
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 18 of 34
Singh was not fit for statement on 22.04.2019 at about 3.46 am
and subsequently, he was declared fit for statement.
26. Dr. Irshad Hussain, Senior Medical Officer, Department
of Surgery, Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi
(PW-14) has deposed on behalf of Dr. Rahul and he identified the
handwriting, signature and stamp of Dr. Rahul on MLC Ex. PW-
13/A. As per the MLC, there was active bleeding on the person of
injured. Accordingly, ligation of active bleeder (cut blood vessels
were tied with the help of suture material) was done and ASD
(Aseptic Dressing) of all wound was also done and the injury was
opined as ‘Dangerous’ by Dr. Rahul.
EXPERT EVIDENCE
27. Manish Gupta, Junior Forensic Chemical Examiner
(Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi (PW-16) has deposed that parcel
No.1 was found containing four exhibits and he marked them as
Ex. 1a (plastic mat), 1b (a pair of sandal), 1c (broken glass bottle)
and 1d (plastic glass). Parcel No.2 was found containing Ex. 2 i.e.
blood sample of injured. After biological examination, blood was
detected on Ex. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 2. His report is Ex. PW-16/A
and allelic data is Ex. PW-16/B. Remnants of the exhibits were re-
sealed with the seal of MG FSL DELHI. After DNA examination,
his conclusions are as under:
“The DNA Fingerprinting profile (STR analysis) performed
on the source of exhibits provided is sufficient to concludeSC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 19 of 34
that the DNA profile of male origin generated from the
source of exhibits ‘1b’ (A pair of plastic sandals), 1c
(broken glass bottle) and 1d (plastic glass) is matching with
the DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.2 (blood
sample).”
ARGUMENTS
28. I have heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shrivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for
the State and Mr. Harish Kumar, Ld. counsel for the accused and
have carefully perused the material available on record.
29. It is argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has contended
that prosecution has been able to prove the case to the hilt. It is
further argued that the testimony of the injured witness i.e. Deepak
Kumar (PW-5) as well as his brother Shyam Singh (PW-1) is
absolutely trustworthy, and they have fully supported the case of
prosecution and they have not departed even a bit from their
statements made in the investigation. All the police officials have
also proved various facets of the investigation and the MLC also
indicate that the injury was on the vital part of the body of Deepak
(PW-5) and, therefore, the obvious intention of the accused was to
commit attempt to murder on Deepak Kumar (PW-5).
30. It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that
prosecution did not cite any public witness. It has been further
argued that the place of incident is in very populated area, and so
many persons were residing thereby but the police officers did not
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 20 of 34
cite any public witness and the brother of the injured Shyam Singh
(PW-1) did not disclose regarding the incident and he was not the
eyewitness of the alleged incident. It is further argued that Shyam
Singh (PW-1) is an interested witness being the brother of the
injured Deepak Kumar (PW-5). It is further argued that non
joining of independent witness at the time of arrest of the accused,
and also at the time of preparation of the site plan, which has been
stated to have been prepared at the instance of accused,
improbalise the story of prosecution. It is further argued that the
complainant himself was in intoxication condition and he himself
fell down on roof where the quarter was lying on the floor and he
himself sustained injuries and Deepak (PW-5) had not been
attacked by the accused.
31. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival
contentions and carefully perused the entire record.
32. It is well settled law that in order to bring home conviction,
it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case in such a manner
so as to bring it outside the pale of any reasonable doubt. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of
Chhattisgarh MANU/SC/0069/2025 has held as under :-
“18. In case of a crime committed, upon completion of
investigation by the investigation agency, the accused
are brought before the court to face trial. Under our
criminal jurisprudence, the court ordinarily is not
privy to the evidence collected during the investigation
by the investigation agency. After completion of theSC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 21 of 34
investigation, what is brought before the trial court is
an array of evidence, both documentary and oral,
collected by the investigating agency against the
accused which are required to be marshalled and
analyzed by the court to arrive at appropriate
conclusions. The prosecution seeks to recreate the
incident of crime before the court in sequence, based
on the evidence so collected, linking the accused with
the commission of crime. Such recreation of crime by
the prosecution before the court is akin to putting the
evidence together as in a jigsaw puzzle whereby all the
relevant pieces of evidence are put together to
complete the picture of the crime. The prime
responsibility of the court is to see whether this jigsaw
puzzle has been properly placed by the prosecution
from which a clear picture emerges as to the
happening of the incident with the assigned role of the
accused as part of the aforesaid jigsaw puzzle. Only,
thereafter, the role of the accused in perpetrating the
offence can be properly ascribed and proved and
accordingly, criminal liability fastened on the accused.
19. As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
a fact can be said to have been proved when, after
considering the matters before it, the court either
believes it to exist or considers its existence so
probable that a prudent man ought, under the
circumstances of the particular case, to act up on the
supposition that it exists. The court undertakes this
exercise of examining whether the facts alleged
including the particular criminal acts attributed to the
accused are proved or not.
20. It is also to be noted that the law does not
contemplate stitching the pieces of evidence in a
watertight manner, for the standard of proof in a
criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only
beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, if a clear
picture emerges on piecing together all evidence which
indicates beyond reasonable doubt of the role played
by the accused in the perpetration of the crime, the
court holds the accused criminally liable and punishes
them under the provisions of the penal code, in
contradistinction to the requirement of proof based onSC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 22 of 34
the preponderance of probabilities as in case of civil
proceedings.
……………..
26. Thus, the requirement of law in criminal trials is
not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond
reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary,
fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair
doubt based on reason and common sense….”
33. Admittedly, the case of prosecution is primarily depending
on the statement of Deepak Kumar (PW-5) which is duly
supported by Shyam Singh (PW-1) who happens to be the brother
of injured i.e. Deepak Kumar (PW-5) but no public witness has
been joined. It is not always necessary that the Court always
should seek corroboration from the neutral corner but the joining
of neutral witnesses gives strong position to the case of
prosecution.
34. It is the contention of the Ld. counsel for the accused that
the place of incident is situated in very populated area and the
public persons were present at the scene of incident, despite that
none of them has been contacted for necessary corroboration, this
court would be examining the testimony of injured witness
Deepak Kumar (PW-5) and that of Shyam Singh (PW-1), who
happens to be the brother of Deepak Kumar (PW-5) in the
cautious manner. I have gone through the testimony of Deepak
Kumar (PW-5) and Shyam Singh (PW-1) and it is quite evident
that both of them reiterated the same version given by them to the
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 23 of 34
police during investigation.
35. It may be noted that Deepak Kumar (PW-5), the injured
witness and Shyam Singh @ Raju (PW-1), who is brother of
Deepak Kumar (PW-5) have categorically deposed that the
accused assaulted Deepak Kumar (PW-5) on his left side of the
neck with a broken bottle of liquor and the injuries so suffered by
Deepak Kumar (PW-5) in his neck near jaw has been opined to be
dangerous to life, therefore it can be safely concluded that the
accused, though might be in an inebriated condition, was having
not only intention but knowledge also that if he by this act caused
death of PW-5 he would be guilty of murder, in this regard,
reliance has been placed on the judgment titled State of M.P. v.
Kashiram & Ors., 2009 (4) SCC 26, wherein it has been held as
under :-
“8. Section 307 relates to attempt to murder. It reads as
follows:
“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.”
9. To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not
essential that bodily injury capable of causing death
should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 24 of 34
actually caused may often give considerable assistance
in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused,
such intention may also be deduced from other
circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be
ascertained without any reference at all to actual
wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act
of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not
be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted
is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the
culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not
necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of
the assault should be sufficient under ordinary
circumstances to cause the death of the person
assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be
the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is
present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof.
10. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section
307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt
act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily
injury capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the
act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to
see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an
accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be
acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the
victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.”
36. In Gajraj @ Amit @ Kalicharan v. State NCT Of Delhi,
2025:DHC:953, it has been held as under :-
“In order to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC,
the prosecution must establish that the act was done with
such intention or knowledge that if death had been caused,
the offence would amount to murder. The presence of
intention or knowledge is sine qua non. When assessing
whether an offence committed falls under the provision ofSC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 25 of 34
Section 307 IPC, the intention to commit the offence can
be gathered from the nature of injury as well as other
attending circumstances like the seat of the injury, the
nature of the weapons used, and the severity with which
the blows were inflicted. The act may not even result in an
injury. As such, it is the intention or knowledge with which
the act was committed which is to be considered. The
ingredients of the Section are satisfied if the prosecution is
able to prove the intent and for its execution, commission
of some overt acts (Ref: State of Maharashtra v Balram
Bama Patil). The Supreme Court, in the case of Sivamani
v. State, discussed the law prevailing around Section 307
IPC in the following manner:-
9. 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
mentioned in the section. The position that
because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does
not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction 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.
37. To determine whether the offence committed by the accused
falls under Section 307 IPC, this Court has to examine if accused
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 26 of 34
would have been guilty of murder of Deepak Kumar (PW-5)
because of the injuries caused by the accused on his person.
Culpable homicide becomes a murder in certain set of facts and
circumstances as provided under Section 300 IPC. Should it be
inferred from the nature of injury caused to Deepak Kumar (PW-
5) by the accused that he intended to cause death while inflicting
such injuries or that he could have been imputed knowledge that
injury which he caused with intention was likely to cause death or
that he caused injury with intention of causing such bodily injury
which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death or that the act committed by accused was so imminently
dangerous that in all probability would have caused death. The
determination depends upon the surrounding circumstances,
including whether the act was premeditated or had occurred
during a sudden quarrel, the nature of the weapon used, the part of
the body targeted, the nature of injuries inflicted and the manner in
which the assault took place.
38. The nature of the injury and the part of body i.e. neck on
which injury was caused are sufficient to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused had assaulted Deepak Kumar (PW-5) with
a broken bottle of liquor and caused injuries dangerous to life
(which are on the vital part of the body i.e. neck of PW-5) with
such intention or knowledge that if by that act he had caused death
of Deepak Kumar (PW-5), he would have been guilty of murder.
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 27 of 34
The testimony of the injured Deepak Kumar (PW-5) and Shyam
Singh @ Raju (PW-1) are alone sufficient to prove the offence and
the testimony of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and
has to be placed on a higher pedestal and considered to be reliable.
39. The case of the prosecution largely rests on the testimony of
the victim (PW-5) and the medical evidence obtaining in this case.
It is trite law that evidence of an injured witness is required to be
given a very high weightage. His version needs to be accepted,
unless there is convincing evidence to discredit it. Though not
quoted, reliance is placed upon Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.
(2010) 10 SCC 259, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
reiterated the principle and had held as under :-
“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 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.”
The ratio decidendi of this judgment has also been reiterated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baleshwar Mahto & Anr. v.
State of Bihar & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 152.
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 28 of 34
40. Though not quoted, reliance is placed upon Machhi Singh
and others v. State of Punjab 1983 Cri. L.J. 1457, in which, it has
been held that the evidence of the victim of the crime alone is
sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, even if the
evidence of other witnesses is excluded from the consideration.
Relevant portion from para. 21 of the judgment is quoted here
below:−
“So far as the first incident is concerned the conviction of
the appellants rests on the testimony of three witnesses viz.
PW 16 Kaka Ram, PW 21 Bagicha Ram and PW 20 Smt.
Nankobai. Out of these three witnesses, the evidence of
PW20 Nankobai is of great significance inasmuch as she
had herself sustained an injury by gun shot on her head.
The fact that Smt. Nankobai sustained gun shot injury in the
course of this transaction is satisfactorily established by the
medical evidence. Now PW 20 was an inmate of the
household of Kehar Singh. Her presence at the house was
therefore natural. The medical evidence therefore fully
corroborates and lends support to her version that she was
one of the inmates of the household and was present at the
scene of offence. Her presence at the time of the offence
cannot therefore be disputed. She being an injured witness,
her evidence is entitled to great weight. There is an inbuilt
guarantee that she was an eye witness to the incident…..”.
41. After perusal of the entire testimony of Deepak Kumar
(PW-5) and Shyam Singh @ Raju (PW-1), who had corroborated
the whole incident on major aspect of the case of prosecution and
have fully supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the
identity of the accused and the whole incident, I find no reason as
to why PW-1 and PW-5 would falsely implicate the accused. On
broad contours, Deepak Kumar (PW-5) and Shyam Singh @ Raju
(PW-1) are worthy of credence and are truthful. There is no
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 29 of 34
material on record which may cause any doubt in their
trustworthiness. In addition to it, the prosecution has proved that
blood sample of Deepak Kumar (PW-5) was taken by Dr.
Kamakshi Kharbanda (PW-6) in terms of the MLC Ex. PW-6/A
and the said blood sample has been found to be matching with the
blood found on the pair of plastic sandals Ex. PW-5/P-1, broken
glass bottle Ex. PW-5/P-3 and plastic glass Ex. PW-5/P-4 used by
Deepak (PW-5) while consuming liquor with the accused in terms
of the FSL report Ex. PW16/A filed by Dr. Manish Gupta (PW-
16).
42. It may be noted that basic purpose of recording of statement
of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put in the
incriminating evidence brought on record against him by the
prosecution and to accord him an opportunity to explain the
circumstances appearing against him and it is the duty of the
accused to explain incriminating circumstances proved against
him while making statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping
silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance
was an additional link in chain of circumstances to sustain charges
against the accused. In this regard, reliance can be placed on Neel
Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766 and Sidhartha
Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1.
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 30 of 34
43. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the Ld. defence
counsel that independent witnesses have not been joined at any
point of time during investigation especially during the arrest of
the accused and preparation of site plan is concerned, suffice is to
say that joining of public witness during investigation is not a sine
qua non for proving the case against the accused and trial did not
stand vitiated only on the ground that public witnesses have not
been joined during investigation by the IO, in this regard, though
not quoted, reliance is placed upon Appabhai & Anr. v. State of
Gujrat, 1988 (Supp.) SCC 241 wherein it has been held as under :
“9. In Bharwada v. Gujarat M.P. Thakkar, J. speaking for
this Court observed (at 285):
A pure finding of fact recorded by the Sessions
Court and affirmed by the High Court. Such the
concurrent finding of fact cannot be reopened in an
appeal by special leave unless it is established : (1)
that the finding is based on no evidence or (2) that
the finding is perverse, it being such as no
reasonable person could have arrived at even if the
evidence was taken at its face value or (3) the
finding is based and built on inadmissible evidence,
which evidence, if excluded from vision, would
negate the prosecution case or substantially
discredit or impair it or (4) some vital piece of
evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of
the convict has been overlooked, disregarded, or
wrongly discarded.
10. In the light of these principles, we may now consider the
first contention urged by the learned Counsel for the
appellants. The contention relates to the failure of the
prosecution to examine independent witnesses. The High
Court has examined this contention but did not find any
infirmity in the investigation. It is no doubt true that the
prosecution has not been able to produce any independent
witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand.
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 31 of 34
There must have been several of such witnesses. But the
prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that
ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people
are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in
their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the
vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless
it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is
between two individuals or parties and they should not
involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general
public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere
whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore
this handicap with which the investigating agency has to
discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of
doubting the prosecution case for want of independent
witness must consider the broad spectrum of the
prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth
with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the
accused. The Court, however, must bear in mind that
witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal
manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken
witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature
may react differently. Their, course of conduct may not be
of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Court,
therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they
have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner. In Rana
Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana 1988 (3) S.C.C. 327 O.
Chinnappa Reddy J. speaking for this Court succinctly set
out what might be the behaviour of different persons
witnessing the same incident. The learned Judge observed;
(at p. 330).
Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own
way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand
rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing.
Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep
themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet
others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the
extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts
in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural
reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the
ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to
appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and
unimaginative way.
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 32 of 34
11. These may be some of the reactions. There may be still
more. Even a man of prowess may become pusillanimous by
witnessing a serious crime. In this case, the courts below, in
our opinion, have taken into consideration of all those
respects and rightly did not insist upon the evidence from
other independent witnesses. The prosecution case cannot
be doubted or discarded for not examining strangers at the
bus stand who might have also witnessed the crime. We,
therefore, reject the first contention urged for the
appellants.”
As per the mandate of this law, there is always a reluctance
of public witnesses to join criminal proceedings is a common
phenomenon and cannot by itself discredit the prosecution case.
Mere non-joining of public witnesses is not fatal to the
prosecution case when the ocular testimony of Deepak Kumar
(PW-5) is otherwise reliable and corroborated by testimony of
other relative witness Shyam Singh @ Raju (PW-1).
44. The contention regarding sustaining of injury by Deepak
Kumar (PW-5) by falling on the floor of the roof where the broken
quarter bottle was lying and that Deepak (PW-5) himself sustained
the injuries, and PW-5 was not attacked by the accused, appears to
be attractive but the same is fallacious in as much as the injury
sustained by Deepak Kumar (PW-5) have admittedly not caused
by free fall on the floor of the roof in as much as the injuries
sustained by PW-5 are clear lacerated wound which cannot be
caused by mere fall of a person on the floor. In addition to it, no
suggestion in this regard has either been given to PW-5 or to the
concerned doctors i.e. Dr. Hirdesh Kumar (PW-13) and Dr. Irshad
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 33 of 34
Hussain (PW-14). Had the injuries suffered by PW-5 by falling
on the floor of roof, then the accused might have taken the injured
to the hospital or else informed his brother (PW-1) who was
present in the room in downstairs and the accused had no intention
or knowledge that if he by that act had caused the death of Deepak
Kumar, he would have been guilty of committing the offence of
culpable homicide amounting to murder.
45. In view of above discussion, this Court holds accused
Kishan @ Krishan guilty for the offence punishable under
Sections 307 IPC, and he is hereby convicted accordingly. Copy
of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open Court VIJAY by VIJAY
on 04th day of July, 2026 KUMAR KUMAR DAHIYA
Date: 2026.07.04
DAHIYA 16:45:32 +0530
(Dr. Vijay Kumar Dahiya)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
SC No.94/2021 State v. Kishan @ Krishan Page 34 of 34
