Delhi High Court
Mohd Talha vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 23 April, 2026
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 16.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 209/2019
MOHD TALHA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr.
Sanawar, Mr. Kshitij Singh, Ms.
Nujhat Naseem, Mr. Sikander
and Mr. Chirag, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
with SI Anil, PS Seemapuri.
Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Mr. Ajay
Chouwdhary, Mr. Mukul Singh
and Mr. H. Verma, Advocates
for respondents no. 2 and 3 with
respondents no. 2 and 3 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 1 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
1. This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by PW2, the injured in
Sessions Case No. 6988/2016 on the file of Additional Sessions
Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi, assailing the judgment dated
27.09.2017 as per which the first accused (A1) and second accused
(A2) have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections
324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 31.12.2011 at about 01:30
PM, near H. No. 31/1, Ward No. 1, Mehrauli, New Delhi, A1 and
A2, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused
injury to PW2 with a knife, thereby committing an offence
punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR of PW2, given on
31.12.2011, Crime No. 02 of 2012, Mehrauli Police Station, that is,
Ext. PW1/A FIR was registered by PW1, Head Constable (HC).
PW6 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 2 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
same, filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the
offence punishable under the aforesaid Section.
4. When A1 and A2 were produced before the trial court, all the
copies of the prosecution records were furnished to them as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated
27.08.2012, the matter was committed under Section 323 Cr.PC to
the Sessions Court concerned for trial along with the counter
case/cross case, i.e., FIR No. 01/12. On appearance of the accused
persons and after hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated
11.11.2014, framed a Charge under Section 324 IPC read with 34
IPC, which was read over and explained to both A1 and A2, to which
they pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined and
Ext. PW 1/A-B, Ext. PW 2/A, Ext. PW 3/A-G & 3/DA, Ext. PW
4/A, Ext. PW 6/A-B were marked.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 3 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, both A1 and A2
were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence
led by the prosecution. They denied all those circumstances and
maintained their innocence. It was submitted by both A1 and A2 that
they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that counter
case/cross case, i.e., FIR No. 01/2012 alleging offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC has been registered against PW2 and his
family members for having assaulted and injured them. The present
FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the said case.
7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by A1 and A2
in support of their case.
8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned
judgment dated 27.09.2017, acquitted both A1 and A2 under Section
235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read
with 34 IPC. Aggrieved, PW2 has preferred this appeal.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 4 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/PW2 submitted that
there exist material lapses on the part of PW6, the Investigating
Officer (IO), like deliberate failure to record statements of certain
material witnesses such has PW2’s aunt; non-inspection of the scene
of crime, no efforts being made by the IO to recover the weapon of
offence used to injure PW2. However, the defective investigation
cannot be a ground to discard the otherwise reliable testimony of
PW2, the injured witness. It was further submitted that the doctor
who had actually prepared the MLC, namely, Dr. Suman Karmakar,
was never examined by the prosecution. Instead, reliance was placed
on PW4, the record keeper, and PW5, a substitute doctor, who lacked
direct knowledge of the injuries and merely interpreted the MLC,
thereby weakening the evidentiary value of the medical evidence.
This was pointed as yet another aspect to show that the IO had not
taken proper steps to prove the prosecution case. It was further
submitted that although an earlier application seeking alteration of
Charge from Section 324 IPC to Section 307 IPC was dismissed, the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 5 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
appellate court is not precluded from convicting the accused under
Section 307 IPC by invoking Section 222 CrPC, as the distinction
between the two offences primarily lies in the element of intention or
knowledge, which can be gathered from the facts and circumstances
on record.
10. Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
calling for an interference by this Court. The learned APP also
pointed out that PW2 deposed that the injury was caused by a knife,
whereas the MLC (Ex. PW4/A) records a “lacerated wound”, which,
as conceded, is ordinarily caused by a blunt object, thereby casting
doubt on the alleged use of a sharp weapon. It was further submitted
that there is complete lack of corroborative evidence, as PW6, the
IO, failed to recover the weapon alleged to have been used in the
crime. Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon material witnesses was never
resorted to. Also, it was contended that PW2 is not a trustworthy
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 6 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
witness inasmuch as he had made material improvements in his
deposition before the Court, thereby affecting his credibility.
11. It was also submitted that the impugned judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court as the
trial court has duly considered each and every ground raised in the
present appeal and, upon an overall appreciation of the materials on
record, adjudicated the matter on merits. It was further contended
that the present case is a fabricated story, instituted merely as a
counter blast to the earlier FIR. It was also submitted that in the
actual incident, the accused persons herein were the victims, having
sustained head injuries which was grievous in nature.
12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is
whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for
an interference by this Court.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 7 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
14. I will first refer to the oral and documentary evidence relied
on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext. PW3/A, the
FIS/FIR of PW2 recorded on 31.12.2011 reads thus: – “On 31.12.11,
at around 1:30 PM in the afternoon, I was standing in front of my
house. My uncle’s sons (cousins) Sultan and Suhail were having a
fight with Arafin (A1) and Hanif (A2) over some matter. Seeing the
fight involving my cousins, I went to intervene to break it up. During
this, Arafin (A1) attacked me with a knife, due to which I sustained
an injury on my right hand. For treatment, I came to the Trauma
Centre via a Private Auto-Rickshaw. Arafin (A1) and Hanif (A2)
have caused me injury; legal action should be taken against them.
….”
15. PW2, when examined before the trial court, deposed that on
31.12.2011 around 01:20 PM-01:30 PM, while he was standing in
front of his house, he saw A1 and A2 quarrelling with his cousins
Sultan and Suhail. When he tried to intervene, A2 caught hold of him
and A1 attacked him on the upper part of his body with a knife. He
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 8 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
tried to save himself by bending backward, however, the knife
pierced through his right hand near the elbow and blood started
oozing from the wound. People who had gathered at the spot
apprehended A1 and A2 and started beating them while they were
lying on the ground. Thereafter, his cousin Sultan made a call to the
police from his mobile phone. He was taken to AIIMS Trauma
Centre by his aunt Shahnaz in a TSR, where he was medically
examined. The police came to the hospital and recorded his Ext.
PW2/A statement. He was discharged from the hospital on the next
day. He pointed out the place of occurrence to the police and site
plan was prepared at his instance. He identified A1 and A2 in the
court and stated that he could identify the knife if shown to him.
15.1. PW2, in his cross examination, deposed that when he
saw A1, the latter was having a knife in his hand. A2 caught hold of
him from his back and overpowered him. According to PW2, had he
not bent backward, the knife would have hit his abdomen or chest
area towards the left side. During the attack, Suhail and Sultan were
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 9 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
standing behind him. He does not know where Umer and Zubair
were standing. Except A1, no other person was armed with any
weapon. PW2 could not recollect whether any other person had
suffered injuries. He was taken to the hospital within about five to
seven minutes of sustaining the injury. By that time, the quarrel had
not stopped and the public were beating A1 and A2. According to
A2, he had informed the police that A1 and A2 had been beaten by
the public, however, the same was not recorded in his statement.
PW2 admitted that Yamin Ali and his father Mehrban Ali are
brothers and that there were criminal cases against them. PW2
admitted that he had not told the doctor as to who had caused injury
to him or the time at which he sustained the injury. PW2 admitted
that he had told the doctor that he had received the injury some time
ago. PW2 was unable to recollect whether he had reached the
hospital at about 02.36 PM and denied the suggestion that he had
told the doctor that he sustained injury at about 02.30 PM. He further
deposed that he remained admitted in the hospital for a day and that
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 10 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
the IO had prepared the site plan, the next day between 10:00 AM to
11:00 AM. He was not able to recollect the exact time of his arrest in
FIR no. 01/2012, but according to him, on 01.01.2012 he was
handcuffed and taken to the scene of crime. He further deposed that
during investigation he had told the police that A1 had attacked him
on the upper part of his body and that the knife had pierced through
his right hand, but the same was never recorded by the police. He
also admitted that the said fact does not find mention in Ex. PW2/A
statement. He denied the suggestion that the injury was self-inflicted
or caused by a friendly hand to create a false case. He admitted that
he, along with Suhail, Sultan and Zubair, are facing trial in FIR No.
01/2012 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. He denied that
he was deposing falsely or that he had attempted to murder A2 Hanif
to take revenge for an incident that occurred in the year 2009.
16. PW4, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi
deposed that he had seen MLC No. 291156 dated 31.12.2011
prepared by Dr. Suman Karmakar, Senior Resident, during the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 11 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
course of his duty and that he is familiar with the writing and
signatures of Dr. Suman Karmakar. He further deposed that Dr.
Suman Karmakar had left the services of the hospital and that the
presence of the said doctor cannot be secured without undue delay
and expense. According to PW4, Ex. PW4/A is the MLC of PW2
prepared by the aforesaid doctor.
17. PW5, Senior Resident, AIIMS, deposed that he has been
deputed to depose on behalf of Dr. Suman Karmakar, who had left
the services of the hospital and had prepared MLC No. 291156 of
PW2 wherein the nature of injury is opined to be simple. PW5 in his
cross examination deposed that there is a difference between a
lacerated wound and an incised wound; that a lacerated wound could
be caused by a blunt object whereas an incised wound could be
caused by a sharp object; and that laceration means a lacerated
wound. He further deposed that the injuries mentioned in the MLC
could have been caused by a fall on a hard surface and could have
been self-inflicted injuries also. PW5 also deposed that as per the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 12 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
MLC, PW2 had been brought to the hospital by one Shehnaz and that
no policeman had accompanied the injured.
18. PW6, Head Constable, when examined, deposed that on
31.12.2011, at about 01.30 PM, upon receipt of a PCR call regarding
a quarrel at 31/1, Mehrauli, he along with PW3 reached the spot,
where it was revealed that the injured had already been taken to
Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital. Hence they proceeded to the said
hospital and came to know that four to five persons from both sides
had been injured. Thereafter, he collected Ext. PW4/A MLC of PW2,
who was declared fit for statement. According to PW6, PW2 initially
refused to give his statement on the ground that he would do so only
after consulting his family members. Then after sometime he
recorded Ext. PW2/A statement of PW2. When he returned to the
scene of crime, PW2 also came there on being discharged from the
hospital. PW2 pointed out the place of occurrence, pursuant to which
Ext. PW6/A site plan was prepared at his instance. PW6 further
deposed that the police officials in relation to the cross case were
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 13 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
also present at the spot. He searched for A1 and A2 but they could
not be found. He later came to know that one accused had been
seriously injured and was undergoing treatment in another hospital.
On 13.01.2012, A1 and A2 came to the police station, whereupon
they were arrested vide Ext. PW3/D and Ext. PW3/E memos and
their personal search was conducted vide Ext. PW3/B and Ext.
PW3/C memos. As the offences were bailable, they were released on
bail. PW6 further deposed that he had recorded their disclosure
statements vide Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/F memos and that both
accused had pointed out the place of occurrence, pursuant to which
Ex. PW3/A pointing out memo was prepared. During the course of
the examination-in-chief, the prosecutor is seen to have sought
permission of the trial court to put a leading question. The same is
seen allowed. On further examination, PW6 admitted that in his
endorsement made in Ext. PW2/A, it has not been recorded that PW2
had initially refused to give his statement and denied the suggestion
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 14 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
that he deposed so to help A1 and A2 or to conceal any dereliction of
duty.
18.1. PW6 in his cross examination, deposed that he first met
the A1 and A2 in the hospital on the day of the incident at about
05:00 PM-06:00 PM, who were also injured, one of them was badly
injured and the other had minor injuries. He had collected their
MLCs, but had not placed them on record. He further deposed that
on inquiry, PW2 informed him that he had been brought to the
hospital by his aunt. However, he did not record her statement. He
admitted that he made no effort to record her statement. PW6 further
deposed that he recorded the statement of one accused at about 12:00
midnight as the other was unfit, and on the basis of that statement
FIR No. 01/2012 was registered at P.S. Mehrauli, possibly under
Section 324 IPC. He deposed that A1 and A2 were taken to the
hospital by the PCR officials. He further deposed that A1 and A2
were not arrested as they were not found at the hospital or at home.
PW6 admitted that A2 remained admitted till 13.01.2012 and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 15 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
underwent head surgery. He further deposed that during
interrogation, the accused persons disclosed that they had thrown the
knife on the way while being taken to the hospital by the PCR
officials. However, he did not record the statement of any PCR
official to verify the same.
19. As per Section 324 IPC, whoever voluntarily causes hurt by
means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or by any
instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause
death, or by means of fire or any heated substance is liable to be
punished. In the case on hand, the ingredients to prove the
commission of offence under Section 324 IPC is sought to be
established through the testimony of PW2 and the medical evidence
in the form of Ext. PW4/A MLC, which reflects the nature of injuries
sustained.
20. To establish the prosecution case, there is only the testimony
of PW2, the injured to which I have referred to in detail. According
to PW2, A1 had attacked him with a knife which resulted in an
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 16 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
injury. The knife is alleged to have pierced through his right hand
near the elbow causing a bleeding injury. PW6 in his cross
examination deposed that during the course of interrogation of A1
and A2, disclosed that they had thrown away the knife while they
were being taken in a PCR Van to the hospital. PW6 did not clarify
as to which of the accused persons had said so. A1 and A2 could not
have apparently given a statement in unison. Or was it a joint
statement? There is no clarity on this aspect. PW6 further admitted
that he had not questioned any of the official(s) who were in the van
when A1 and A2 were being taken to the hospital to ascertain
whether A1 and A2 had in fact thrown away the knife while they
were being taken to the hospital. None of the officials, who are
alleged to have been in the PCR along with A1 and A2 was
examined to establish or substantiate this aspect. No attempt
whatsoever is seen by PW6 to recover the knife that is alleged to
have been used by A1 for the assault. Therefore, there is certainly a
dereliction of duty on the part of PW6. However, recovery of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 17 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
weapon used for the crime is not a sine qua non for coming to a
conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused (Rakesh v. State of
U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188). If there is other evidence that is credible,
the same can certainly be looked into. Therefore, I will look into the
question as to whether the remaining materials on record is sufficient
to find A1 and A2 guilty of the offence for which they have been
charged.
21. Apart from the testimony of PW2, the prosecution relies on
the medical evidence to prove the injury caused to PW2. According
to the prosecution, it is one Dr. Suman Karmakar, AIIMS Trauma
Centre, New Delhi, who had examined PW2 on 31.12.2011. PW4,
the Record Clerk, AIIMS, Trauma Centre, New Delhi, deposed that
that the said doctor had left the services of the hospital and that the
presence of the doctor cannot be secured without undue delay and
expense. PW4 also identified the signature of the said doctor in
Exhibit PW4/A MLC of PW2. PW4 was never cross examined by
A1 and A2. PW5 another doctor of the aforesaid hospital also
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 18 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
deposed that Dr. Suman Karmakar had left the services of the
hospital and that it was the latter who had prepared Exhibit PW4/A
MLC of PW2. PW5 also identified the signature of Dr. Suman
Karmakar in Exhibit PW4/A MLC. Referring to this evidence, it was
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A4 that the
prosecution deliberately had not examined Dr. Suman Karmakar, the
doctor, who had actually examined and treated PW2. This was done
deliberately by the IO to help A1 and A2.
22. In this context, I refer to Section 32 of the Evidence Act
which reads thus:-
32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person
who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.
Statements, written or verbal, or relevant facts, made by a
person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has
become incapable of giving evidence, or whose atttendance
cannot be procured, without an amount of delay or expense
which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court
unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following
cases:
xxxxxxx
(2)Or is made in course of business – When the statement
was made by such person in the ordinary course of business,
and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum
made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business,Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 19 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an
acknowledgement written or signed by him of the receipt of
money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a
document used in commerce written or signed by him, or of the
date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or
signed by him.
(Emphasis supplied)
22.1. In Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR
1989 SC 702, it has been held that Section 32 of the Evidence Act
provides that when a statement written or verbal, is made by a
person in the discharge of professional duty whose attendance
cannot be procured without an amount of delay, the same is
relevant and admissible in evidence.
22.2. In Rambalak Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1964
Patna 62, it has been held that if the doctor who had performed
the autopsy was not available at the time of trial or he is abroad,
the post-mortem certificate prepared by him would be admissible
in evidence if the handwriting and signature of the autopsy
surgeon on the post-mortem certificate are proved.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 20 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
22.3. I also refer to the dictum in Kochu and Ors. v. State of
Kerala, 1978 KHC 321 : 1978 SCC OnLine Ker 79. In the said
case, an argument was advanced on behalf of the accused that the
burden cast on the prosecution cannot be said to have been
discharged by the mere examination of the medical officer who is
familiar with the handwriting and signature of the doctor who
issued the post mortem certificate; but the prosecution must prove
the contents of the document and also elicit from the witness
examined, his independent opinion as an expert on the
conclusions reached by the doctor who held the autopsy. It was
held that it was not always necessary and the law also does not
insist that in all such cases the witness should give his
independent opinion on the findings in the post mortem certificate
or speak to each and every statement made therein. Of course, if
an expert witness, who has been examined to prove the post
mortem certificate issued by a doctor who was dead or was not
available for examination in court under the circumstances stated
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 21 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
in S.32 (1) of the Evidence Act, also gives independent evidence
as an expert on the conclusions arrived at in the post mortem
certificate, it would constitute an additional piece of evidence of
an expert. Under S.32, statements, written or verbal, of relevant
facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or
who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose
attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or
expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to
the court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in cases
falling under sub-s.1 to 8. A post mortem certificate is not
substantive evidence. It is only the evidence given in court by the
doctor who held the autopsy that constitutes substantive evidence.
A post mortem certificate, being a document containing the
previous statement of a doctor who examined the dead body, can
be used only to corroborate his statement under S.157 or to
contradict his statement under S.145 or to refresh his memory
under S.159 of the Evidence Act. But, S.32 (2) is an exception to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 22 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
this. If the doctor who held the autopsy is dead or is not available
for examination under the circumstances mentioned in S.32 of the
Evidence Act, the certificate issued by him is relevant and
admissible under S.32(2) of the Evidence Act. The weight to be
attached to such a report or its probative value depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. The court can come to its
independent conclusion on the cause of death, if there is
independent evidence on record in support of it. Then the
question is whether the statements made in the post mortem
certificate, containing what was observed by the doctor during
autopsy and the conclusion arrived at by him therein have been
properly proved in accordance with law. S.67 of the Evidence Act
speaks of the mode of proof of a document. Under S.67 if a
document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly
or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so
much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s
handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. When in
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 23 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
cases the prosecution is not able to procure the attendance of the
doctor who held autopsy without unreasonable delay or expense,
the statement coming under S.32(2) of the Evidence Act has to be
proved by one of the various modes prescribed in S.47 of the
same Act.
23. Coming back to the facts of the case on hand, as noticed
earlier, PW4 has clearly deposed that the presence of the doctor who
had examined and treated PW2 cannot be secured without an amount
of delay or expense. This aspect has never been cross examined on
behalf of A1 and A2. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing one of the circumstances contemplated under Section 32
of the Evidence Act, that is, the attendance of the doctor who
examined PW2 could not be procured without an amount of delay or
expense. Ext. PW4/A MLC was prepared by the doctor in discharge
of his official duty. In such circumstance, his statement becomes
relevant under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act. Section 47 of the
Evidence Act which deals with situations when opinions as to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 24 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
handwriting are relevant, says that when the Court has to form an
opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or
signed, the opinion of a person acquainted with the handwriting of
the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was
or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Section
67 of the Evidence Act which deals with proof of signature and
handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document,
says that if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written
wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of
so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s
handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. PW4 and PW5
deposed that they are familiar with the handwriting and signature of
Dr. Suman Karmakar and both of them identified the signature of the
doctor in Exhibit PW4/A MLC. Therefore, in the absence of Dr.
Suman Karmakar, the prosecution has proved Exhibit PW4/A MLC
by resorting to the provisions of Section 32(2) read along with
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 25 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
Sections 47 and 67 of the Evidence Act, which is permissible and
therefore, arguments to the contrary are liable to be rejected.
24. The history in Exhibit PW4/A MLC is recorded as – “alleged
history of assault.” The injury is stated to be “laceration (two on
inner spect right elbow 1.4×3 CM, 2.5×1 CM)”. In the comments
column, it is recorded thus:- “Cut with knife”. Dr. Suman Karmakar
has opined in the MLC that the the injury noted to be simple and the
weapon used to be sharp. According to PW5, laceration means a
lacerated wound and that such wound could be caused by a blunt
object whereas an incised wound would be caused by a sharp object.
No clarification was sought by the prosecutor on these aspects
spoken to by PW5 in his cross examination. If PW2 is to be believed
when A1 attacked him with a knife, the same pierced through his
right hand near the elbow. If that be so, it could possibly have been a
incised wound and not a lacerated wound as seen in Ext. PW4/A
MLC. If that be so, the medical evidence does not support the
version of PW2 that he had been stabbed with a knife by A1.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 26 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
25. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellants wanted this Court to examine the scar on the right hand of
PW2 who was present in the Court. It was submitted that PW2
pursuant to the attack by A1 and A2 required about 22 stitches on his
hand. This Court declined the request of the learned counsel. 15
years have elapsed since the incident. Even if there is a scar in the
right hand of PW2, it would not be possible for this Court to
conclude that the same was the result of the injury caused to him on
31.12.2011. Such an exercise, if necessary, ought to have been done
during the course of trial, at which time the opposite party would
also have obtained an opportunity to challenge the same.
26. Further, according to PW2, his cousins, namely, Sultan,
Suhail were very much present when the incident occurred. He also
deposed that it was his aunt, who had taken him to the hospital for
treatment pursuant to the incident. However, for reasons best known
to the prosecution, none of the said persons have been examined on
behalf of the prosecution. This aspect was also pointed out by the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 27 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 to canvass the point
that a shabby and shoddy investigation had been conducted by the
police deliberately to help A1 and A2 escape the consequences of
their crime. If PW2 was quite unhappy with the investigation
conducted, he was not left without any remedies. He could have filed
a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 200
Cr.P.C. or a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate seeking
directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. PW2 could have even
approached the higher police authorities, if the IO in this case had
deliberately botched up the investigation. PW2 could have also
approached the Court for getting his grievances re-addressed.
However, no such step is seen taken by PW2 in this direction. Hence,
at this late stage, it cannot now be argued that the IO deliberately did
not collect necessary evidence to substantiate the case. Here it needs
to be noticed that when the trial court framed a charge for the offence
under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, the same was
challenged on the ground that the materials actually made out an
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 28 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
offence under Section 307 IPC. The challenge I am told was
dismissed by this Court. Therefore, it is quite apparent that PW2 was
well aware of what investigation had been conducted, the persons
who were to be examined as witnesses etc. Therefore, if PW2 had
any grievance(s) against the investigation done, he ought to have
resorted to the remedies available to him under law. But for reasons
best known to PW2, no such step is seen taken by him.
27. Yet another interesting argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants A1 and A2 is that despite the trial court
framing a charge under Section 324 IPC, if evidence on record
reveals an offence under Section 307 IPC, this court can certainly
enter into a finding regarding the same. When asked by the Court as
to which sub-Section of Section 222 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, the
learned counsel referred to sub-Section (1) Cr.P.C.
28. Section 222 Cr.P.C. reads:-
“222. When offence proved included in offence charged.–
(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 29 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes
a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the
remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the
minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are
proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of
the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be
convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt
is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for
the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not
been satisfied.”
(Emphasis supplied)
As is evident, Section 222(1) Cr.P.C deals with a case,
“when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several
particulars”. The Section permits the Court to convict the accused
“of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it”. Sub-
section (2) deals with a similar, but slightly different situation. As
per sub-Section (2), when a person is charged with an offence and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 30 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
facts are proved, it is reduced to a minor offence, he may be
convicted of a minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
What is meant by a “minor offence”, for the purpose of Section 222
Cr.P.C. was being dealt with by the Apex Court in S.M. Multtani v.
State of Karnataka, 2001 (2) SCC 577, in which it has been held
that, although the said expression is not defined in Cr.P.C, it can be
discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not
merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence.
The two illustrations provided in the Section would bring the above
point home well. Only if the two offences are cognate offences,
wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among
them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as a minor offence, vis-
a-vis the other offence.
29. In the case on hand, A1 and A2 has been charged for having
committed the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC which
deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
The ingredients to be proved under Section 324 are that the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 31 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
prosecution must prove that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to a
person with a weapon as described in the Section, which if used as a
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. In Mathai v. State of
Kerala (2005) 3 SCC 260 it has been held that the expression “any
instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause
death” has to be gauged, taking note of the heading of the section.
What would constitute a “dangerous weapon” would depend upon
the facts of each case and no generalization can be made. In Nanda
Gopalan v. State of Kerala, (2015) 11 SCC 137, after referring to
Mathai (Supra) as well as the dictum in Dasan v. State of Kerala,
(2014) 12 SCC 66, it has been held that, the expression “any
instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause
death” should be construed with reference to the nature of the
instrument and not the manner of its use. What has to be established
by the prosecution is that the accused voluntarily caused hurt and
that such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in
this section. Various factors like size, sharpness etc would throw
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 32 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly
weapon or not. That would determine whether in a case, offences
under Sections 323, 324, 325 or 326 would apply.
30. Section 307 IPC on the other hand deals with the offence of
attempt to commit murder. The essential ingredients required to be
proved in the case of an offence under 307 are:- (i) that the death of a
human being was attempted; that such death was attempted to be
caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused; and that such
act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as; (a) the accused
knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to
cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently
dangerous that it must in all probability cause, (a) death, or (b) such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no
excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. (State
of Maharashtra v. Kashi Rao, 2003 (10) SCC 434).
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 33 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
30.1 A person commits an offence under Section 307, when he
has an intention to commit murder and, in pursuance of that
intention, does an act towards its commission irrespective of the
fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not. It is to be clearly
understood, however, that the intention to commit the offence of
murder means that the person concerned has the intention to do
certain act with the necessary intention or knowledge mentioned in
Section 300. The intention to commit an offence is different from
the intention or knowledge requisite for constituting the act as that
offence. The expression “whoever does an act with such intention
of knowledge and under such circumstances that if he, by that act,
caused death, he would be guilty of murder” in Section 307, simply
means that the act must be done with the intent or knowledge
requisite for the commission of the offence of murder. The
expression “by that act” does not mean that the immediate effect of
the act committed must be death. Such a result must be the result of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 34 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
that act whether immediately or after a lapse of time. (Om Parkash
v. State of Punjab, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 72).
30.2 Further, to justify a conviction under Section 307, it is not
essential that the bodily injury capable of causing death should have
been inflicted. Although the nature of such injury 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 reference at all to the actual injury. What the
Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was
done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances
mentioned in the Section. (See Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of
Jharkhand, 2004 (12) SCC 220).
31. Therefore, it is apparent that the ingredients contemplated
under Sections 307 and 324 IPC are different and that Section 307 is
not a minor offence as contemplated under Section 222(1) Cr.P.C.
when compared to Section 324 IPC On the other hand, had A1 and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 35 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
A2 been charged under Section 307 IPC and if the evidence made
out only an offence of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous
weapon as contemplated under Section 324 IPC, a conviction would
certainly have been possible under Section 324 by resort to section
222(1) Cr.P.C. However, that is not situation in the case on hand. In
these circumstances Section 222(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in this
case.
32. Moreover, the evidence on record is not sufficient to find A1
and A2 guilty of the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34
IPC. Further, when an acquittal has been recorded by the trial court,
the appellate court ought not to interfere unless the findings are
perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on a misappreciation of
material evidence. If the view taken by the trial court is a plausible
and reasonable view on the evidence, the same does not warrant
interference merely because another view is possible. (See
Chandrappa & Ors vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC 415). I
do not find any grounds for interference into the impugned judgment.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 36 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44
33. Hence, the appeal sans merit, is dismissed.
34. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 23, 2026
p’ma/kd
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 209/2019 Page 37 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
16:06:44