Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar @ Pradeep vs State on 25 May, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 19.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.05.2026
+ CRL.A. 35/2016
RAJ KUMAR @ PRADEEP .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia and Ms. Rimpy
Rohilla Advocates
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused no. 1 (A1) in SC No. 33/2014
on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West),
Rohini Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment and order on sentence
dated 26.09.2015 as per which he has been convicted and
sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 1 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
2. The prosecution case is that on 23.03.2013 at about
10:30 p.m., at U.T. Block Chowk, Mangol Puri, Delhi, both the
accused persons, namely, A1 and A2, caused grievous injuries
toPW8 and PW9 with a sharp-edged weapon on their faces and
other body parts with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that, had death been caused, they would have been
guilty of murder. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the
accused persons are alleged to have committed the offences
punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC.
3. On the basis of Ext.PW7/A FIS/FIR of PW12, given on
24.03.2013, Crime no. 199/2019, Mangol Puri Police Station, that
is, Ext.PW2/B FIR was registered by PW2, Head Constable.
PW10, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) was entrusted with the
investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation into
the crime, the charge-sheet/final report was filed alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned
sections. Although A2 was chargesheeted, he appears to have
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 2 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
absconded and hence from the records, it is seen that vide order
dated 23.05.2014, he was declared a proclaimed offender, which
was apparently before the case was committed to the Court of
Session.
4. When A1 was produced before the trial court, all the
copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated
23.05.2014, the matter was committed under Section 209 Cr.PC to
the Sessions Court concerned for trial.
5. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order
dated 16.07.2014, framed a Charge under Section 307 read with
Section 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to him, to
which he pleaded not guilty.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 13were
examined, and Exts. PW1/1, PW1/A-B, PW2/1, PW2/A-C, PW3/1,
PW3/A,PW4/1, PW5/A-B, PW6/A-D, PW7/A-C, PW10/A,
PW10/A1 and PW11/A-B were marked in support of the case.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 3 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, A1 was
questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. A1 denied all those circumstances and
maintained their innocence. A1 claimed that he had been falsely
implicated in the case by PW12, who is his Tau, due to a previous
monetary dispute. He did not cause any injury to anyone.
8. After questioning A1 under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.,
compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on
hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C. is
seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said
provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless
omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in
serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs.
State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker
2888). Here, A1 has no case that non-compliance of Section 232
Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 4 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
9. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the
accused. No documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.
10. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgement dated 26.09.2015, found A1 guilty
of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326 read with
Section 34 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 26.09.2015, A1 has
been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven
years, fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
simple imprisonment of three months for offence punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for a period of three years, fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to simple imprisonment of three months Section
326 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved, A1 has preferred this
appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 submitted that
the impugned judgment is vitiated by a complete misappreciation
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 5 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
of the evidence. PW12 falsely implicated A1 in order to avoid
repayment of ₹1.5 lakhs, borrowed by the former’s late son. PW8
and PW9, daughter and son-in-law of PW12 are interested
witnesses, as the loan was extended to PW8, and she was not
willing to repay the amount. It was submitted that no recovery was
effected from A1, and no independent witness had been examined,
even though the incident is alleged to have taken place in a public
place. The defence evidence has not been properly appreciated by
the trial court. Moreover, it was submitted that the case against A2
has been quashed by this Court and that the attempt of PW8, PW9
and PW12 is only to extort money from the appellant/accused. The
case against A2 was settled on payment of money, which would
again substantiate the case of the appellant/accused that the actual
dispute is a monetary one. On these grounds, the learned counsel
canvassed for an acquittal of the appellant/A1.
12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 6 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
consistent testimony of PW12, PW8 and PW9 clearly establishes
the prosecution case. There is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this Court.
13. Heard both sides and perused the records.
14. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this court.
15. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary
evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext.
PW7/A FIS/FIR of PW12 reads thus:- On 23.03.2013 at about
10:30 p.m., he was returning home after closing his rehri. At that
time, Pradeep (A1), son of his younger brother, and Johny (A2),
his nephew (sister’s son) approached him. Pradeep (A1) told him
that his son late Naresh, had taken ₹1.5 lakhs as loan from the
former and demanded the return of the amount, while threatening
him that otherwise, the former would get his house sold. He
replied that his son Naresh died in an accident the previous year.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 7 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
On hearing this, Pradeep (A1) became aggressive, slapped him,
and kicked him on his stomach. He ran from there to the house of
his daughter, Anu (PW8), at U-578 and called out to her. Anu
(PW8), and his son-in-law, Jagdish (PW9) came out of their house.
His daughter (PW8) asked Pradeep (A1) and Johny (A2) as to why
they had beaten her father. He challenged Pradeep (A1) and Johny
(A2) thus: “अब मार के िदखाओ”. Pradeep (A1) attacked his
daughter, Anu (PW8), on her face with a sharp-edged object.
When his son-in-law Jagdish (PW9) tried to save PW8, Johny (A2)
caught hold of him, and Pradeep (A1) attacked Jagdish (PW9) with
a sharp object on his face and other parts of the body. When he
shouted for help “बचाओ- बचाओ”, both of the accused persons fled
from the spot. He informed the police. All three of them went to
Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Since he had not sustained any visible or
major injuries, he did not get his medical examination done.
Pradeep (A1) and Johny (A2) had caused injuries to his son-in-law
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 8 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
(PW9) and daughter (PW8) by attacking them with a sharp object.
Legal action should be taken against them.
16. PW12 when examined before the court deposed that on
23.03.2013 at about 10:30 p.m., while he was returning home on
foot, Pradeep (A1), who is his nephew, and Johny, his sister’s son,
approached him. Pradeep (A1) told him that his son, late Naresh,
had taken ₹1.5 lakhs and demanded the money back. He told A1
that his son, Naresh, had already passed away in an accident.
Pradeep (A1) then became aggressive, slapped and kicked him on
the stomach. He ran to his daughter Anu’s (PW8) house at U-578,
and called out to the latter and her husband Jagdish (PW9). PW8
and PW9 followed him to UT Block Chowk, Mangolpuri, where
Pradeep (A1) and Johny (A2) were present. His daughter Anu
(PW8) asked Pradeep (A1) as to why the latter had beaten her
father. Upon this, Pradeep (A1) slashed the face of his daughter
Anu (PW8) with a sharp-edged object. When her husband Jagdish
(PW9) tried to save her, Johny (A2) caught hold of him, and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 9 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
Pradeep (A1) also slashed his face and other parts of his body. A1
gave multiple slashes to both PW8 and PW9. He raised an alarm
by shouting “bacho, bacho.” Finding no other option, both the
accused, Pradeep (A1) and Johny (A2), fled from the spot. He
called the police. Before the PCR reached the spot, he, along with
his daughter Anu (PW8) and his son-in-law Jagdish (PW10), left
for SGM Hospital. As he had not sustained any major injuries, he
was not examined. However, his daughter Anu (PW8) and his son-
in-law Jagdish (PW9) had suffered serious injuries and were given
treatment at the hospital. The police met him at the hospital, where
his Ext. PW7/A statement was recorded. He had shown the scene
of crime to the Investigating Officer (IO), who prepared Ext.
PW7/C site plan.
16.1 PW12 in his cross-examination deposed that no money
transaction had taken place between him and Pradeep (A1). He
admitted that he, along with his daughter Anu (PW8) and his son-
in-law Jagdish (PW9), had sold the plot of his deceased son,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 10 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
Naresh, in order to clear Naresh’s debts. He denied all suggestions
of money transactions between his late son Naresh and A1. PW12
denied the suggestion that on the date of the incident, a dispute had
occurred between his daughter and son-in-law with some other
person on the issue of running a cyber cafe, and that in the said
incident injuries had been caused to the latter.
17. PW8, the daughter of PW12, deposed that on
23.03.2013, her father Mehar Chand (PW12) had come to her
house at about 10:30 p.m. Her father started calling out her and her
husband, namely, Jagdish (PW9). They both came to UT block
Chowk, where her father (PW12) informed them that he had been
beaten by Pradeep (A1). She, along with PW9 and PW12 went to
UT block Chowk where Pradeep (A1) was and questioned him for
having beaten her father. Her father said to A1, “Ab tu maar ke
dikha”. Pradeep (A1) then slashed her face with a sharp-edged
object, and when her husband, Jagdish (PW9), tried to save her,
Johny (A2) caught hold of him, and Pradeep (A1) slashed his face
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 11 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
and other parts of the body with the said object. Her father raised
an alarm by shouting, bachao- bachao. A1 and A2 then ran away
from the spot. Her father (PW12) called the police. She, along with
her father (PW12) and her husband (PW9), went to Sanjay Gandhi
Hospital for treatment. PW8 identified Raj Kumar @ Pradeep (A1)
before the court.
17.1. PW8, in her cross-examination, denied the suggestion
that on the date of the incident, i.e., 23.03.2013, a quarrel had
taken place between one of her customers and her husband (PW9)
in her cyber cafe, and that the said person had threatened both of
them with dire consequences. She denied the suggestion that the
person who had quarrelled with them had physically assaulted her
and her husband (PW9) with a sharp object. PW8 admitted that Raj
Kumar @ Pradeep (A1) is her cousin brother and that Naresh is
her elder brother. Naresh, who is no more, had good relations with
Raj Kumar @ Pradeep (A1). She denied the suggestion that when
she was in dire need of money, Naresh had extended financial help
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 12 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
to her or that when she asked Naresh for money, he had sought
help from Raj Kumar @ Pradeep (A1), and that it was the latter
who had given a pair of ear rings/jhumkies to be pledged with
Muthoot Finance and that the money obtained had been handed
over to her. She denied the suggestion that when Raj Kumar @
Pradeep (A1) asked her to return the loan amount, as he wanted to
get his earrings released, she had refused his request. Several
neighbours had gathered when the quarrel took place. She admitted
that she had not witnessed the initial incident of quarrel between
her father and A1. She denied the suggestion that she and her
husband had assaulted Raj Kumar @ Pradeep (A1) and that to
create a defence for themselves, they had called the police.
18. PW9, the husband of PW8 and the son-in-law of PW12,
fully supported the prosecution case.
19. PW11, Dr. Manoj Dhingra, the in-charge, Mortuary,
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi, deposed that on
18.05.2013, he received Ext. PW11/A MLC No. 4892 of PW8 and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 13 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
Ext. PW11/B MLC No. 4981 of PW9 for his expert opinion. After
going through the MLC and examining PW8 and PW9, he had
opined the nature of the injuries to be grievous. PW11 identified
the endorsements made and signature of Dr. Brijesh, the Chief
Medical Officer (CMO) who had initially examined PW8 and
PW9. Dr. Brijesh had referred PW8 and PW9 to the Forensic
Department to assess the nature of their injuries due to
disfiguration of the face.
19.1. PW11, in his cross-examination, admitted that at no
point of time was any weapon of offence shown to him. He
initially deposed that the injuries seen could be caused by a “kara”
as it has sharp edges. He later deposed that as the injury was long,
extending from the neck to the face, the possibility was that the
same was caused by something which was being held by the
assailant in his hand. The injuries were not caused by a fall on a
sharp object. PW11 was unable to say whether the injuries were
fresh or if they had been caused earlier.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 14 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
20. PW13, Dr. Brijesh, Chief Medical Officer (CMO),
SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi deposed that on 24.03.2013, Dr.
Priyash was working as a Junior Resident (JR) under his
supervision. On that day, Dr. Priyash examined the patient, Annu
(PW8), aged about 30 years, and had issued Ext. PW11/A MLC.
The following injuries were noted:- a lacerated wound over the
nasal septum measuring 03 cm 0.5 cm 0.5 cm; a contused
lacerated wound (CLW) over the lower lip measuring 1 cm 0.5 cm
0.25 cm and an incised wound on the right cheek. On 17.05.2013
at 06:30 p.m., PW8 was again examined and referred to the
Forensic Department to determine the nature of the injury in view
of the disfiguration of her face. On the same day, Dr. Priyash had
also examined PW9 and had issued Ext.PW11/B MLC. There was
a sharp incised wound on the left side of the jaw, extending from
the angle of the mouth to the ear lobule, measuring 07 cm 0.5 cm
0.25 cm. The patient was again examined on 17.05.2013 at about
06:30 p.m. and was referred to the Forensic Department for the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 15 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
determination of the nature of the injury in lieu of the disfiguration
of his face. He is acquainted with the handwriting and signature of
Dr. Priyash, as he had seen the latter writing and signing during the
course of the discharge their official duties.
21. PW13 in his cross-examination, deposed that when he
examined the patient, he found the injuries to be fresh and not old.
22. I also make a brief reference to the testimony of the
defence witnesses. DW1 deposed that Raj Kumar (A1) is the son
of his mama, and the injured, Annu (PW8), is also the daughter of
his mama. Raj Kumar (A1) had given ₹1,50,000/- to Annu (PW8)
at the time of the MCD Elections in April 2011. Since Annu
(PW8) was not returning the said amount, there was a dispute
pending between Raj Kumar (A1) and Annu (PW8) on account of
this len-den. During this period, Naresh, son of his mama (PW12)
passed away. Naresh had asked Raj Kumar (A1) to give the money
to Annu (PW8). After Naresh’s death, Annu (PW8) became
dishonest and claimed that since Naresh was dead, no money was
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 16 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
due. According to DW1, the response of PW8 to the demand for
return of money by A1 was:- “usne kaha tha ki mere paas aane ke
jaroorat nahin hai, mere paas koyee paisa nahin hai, paisa Naresh
se le le”. Annu (PW8) also used to threaten anyone who intervened
in the matter. PW9 used to say that he would ensure that anybody
who demanded the money back would be sent to jail.
22.1 DW1 in his cross-examination deposed that Raj Kumar
(A1) in his presence had given the money to Annu (PW8) on the
request of Naresh. There is no written document to evidence the
said transaction. DW1 denied the suggestion that he was deposing
falsely in order to save Raj Kumar (A1).
23. DW2 deposed that she used to go to a cyber cafe
located at U Block, Mangol Puri. On 23.03.2013, at about 05:00
p.m.-06:00 p.m., when she was at the cyber cafe, 05 to 06 boys
came and began fighting with the owner of the cyber cafe. After a
while, all of them left, and she and the others also left the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 17 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
premises. At that time, she had not seen Raj Kumar (A1) inside the
cyber cafe.
24. One of the main arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant/accused is that the case is a false one and
that the attempt of PW8, PW9 and PW12 is only to extort money
from the appellant/accused. In support of the argument, reference
was made to the order of this Court dated 05.01.2018 in CRL.M.C.
51/2018, as per which the FIR and consequent proceedings
emanating there from have been quashed qua A2. It was pointed
out that the order reveals that the matter was settled between A2
and PW8, PW9 and PW12 by the former giving them money.
Therefore, the argument advanced is that the dispute between the
parties is actually a monetary one and not as testified by the
prosecution witnesses and this itself is sufficient to disbelieve the
testimony on record.
25. The incident in this case is alleged to have taken place
on 23.03.2013 at 22:30 hours. Crime No. 199/2013, that is, Ext.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 18 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
PW2/B FIR was registered within hours, that is, on 24.03.2013 at
02:00 hours alleging the commission of offence punishable under
Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. On completion of
investigation, the final report/chargesheet alleging commission of
the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC
by A1 and A2 was submitted before the jurisdictional magistrate
on 09.04.2014. As per order dated 23.05.2014, A2 was declared a
proclaimed offender. After the case was committed, trial was
conducted and the trial court by the impugned judgment dated
26.09.2025 convicted A1, pursuant to which the present appeal
was filed in the year 2016. Apparently, CRL.M.C. 51/2018 was
filed by A2 before this Court much after the impugned judgment in
the case on hand. The order dated 05.01.2018 in the aforesaid
CRL.M.C. reads thus:-
“It is submitted that petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4 are
related to each other. Petitioner is nephew of respondent no.2;
whereas respondent no. 3 is daughter of respondent no.2 and wife
of respondent no. 4. A quarrel took place between them on someSignature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 19 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
trivial issue which led to registration of FIR No. 199/2013 under
Sections 324/34 IPC registered at police station Mangol Puri, on
the complaint of respondent no.2. In the said incident, respondent
nos. 3 and 4 sustained injuries. It is further submitted that with the
intervention of their elders, petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4
have settled their disputes amicably vide Memorandum of
Understanding dated 8th June, 2017. Petitioner has paid ₹1 lac to
the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in order to compensate them towards
the medical treatment received by them. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are
present in Court along with their counsel and have been identified
by ASI Ravinder of police station Mangol Puri. These respondents
submit that they have settled the matter of their own free will and
without any undue force, pressure or coercion and they have no
objection in quashing of the FIR. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 also
admit having received settled amount of ₹1 lac from the petitioner.
Keeping in mind that a settlement has been arrived at between the
petitioners and respondent nos. 2 to 4 voluntarily and these
respondents have no objection in quashing of the FIR, in the
interest of justice, aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings
emanating therefrom are quashed.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. The case of the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 51/2018, who is
none other than A2 in the crime, approached this Court for
quashing the case alleging that the offence was under Section 324
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 20 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
read with Section 34 IPC, which is apparently a false statement. It
is true that crime was initially registered alleging commission of
offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.
But the police on completion of investigation submitted the charge
sheet alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section
307 read with Section 34 IPC. A competent court of law took
congnizance; conducted trial and on the basis of the evidence on
record, concluded that the offence punishable under Section 307
read with Section 34 IPC was made out and proceeded to convict
A1. The impugned judgment dated 26.09.2015 is apparently much
before the CRL.M.C. 51/2018 was moved by A2 to quash the FIR
against him. It is quite disturbing to note that the IO or the SHO
concerned never brought it to the notice of the Court that A1 had
already been convicted. As A2 had been declared a proclaimed
offender, non-bailable warrants would certainly have been pending
against him. But neither A2 (the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 51/2018)
nor the officer concerned, who is specifically referred to in the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 21 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
aforesaid order thought it fit to bring it to the notice of the Court
about the impugned judgment or the fact that A2 had been
declared a proclaimed offender in the case or the offence alleged is
not under Section 324 IPC but under Section 307 IPC. A reading
of the order also gives the impression that it was never brought to
the notice of the Court that the trial against A1 had ended in a
conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with
Section 34 IPC. Therefore, A2 apparently seems to have misled the
Court and obtained the aforesaid order in the CRL.M.C. 51/2018
on the ground that the case involved only the commission of a
minor offence.
27. Further, on going through the aforesaid order, it is seen
that A2 paid an amount of ₹1 lac to respondents no. 3 and 4 in the
said case, who appear to be PW8 and PW9 in this case to
compensate them towards the medical treatment undergone by
them. If no such incident as alleged by the prosecution witnesses
had been taken place, there was absolutely no need for A2 to have
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 22 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
paid money to the injured witnesses to compensate them for the
medical treatment. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant/A1 that no such incident as alleged had taken
place and that it was actually only a money dispute that existed
between the parties and that the attempt of the injured is only to
extort money from him, does not appear true or probable.
28. I have already referred to in detail the testimony of
PW8 and PW9, who are injured in this case. PW12 admits that he
had not sustained any injuries in the incident. On going through the
testimony of PW8 and PW9, I do not find any reason(s) to
disbelieve them. As held by the Apex Court in Abdul Sayeed v.
State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 and Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, it is settled law that the testimony of
injured witnesses carries great evidentiary value. The law on the
point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of injured
witnesses is accorded a special status in law. This is as a
consequence of the fact that the injury is an inbuilt guarantee of his
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 23 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not
want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely
implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the
testimony of injured witnesses should be relied upon unless there
are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies therein. No material
contradictions or inconsistencies have been brought out in the
testimony of PW8 or PW9 to disbelieve them.
29. It is true that the appellant (A1) has examined two
witnesses to substantiate his defence version that it was only a
money dispute between the parties. It is also true that DW1
supports the defence version of the appellant/accused. As far as
DW2 is concerned, her testimony is to the effect that she is a
customer of the cyber cafe of PW8 and PW9 and that on the date
of the incident at about 05:00 – 06:00 PM, while she was at the
cyber cafe, about 5 to 6 boys came and fought with the owner of
the cyber cafe. According to DW2, A1 was not in the company of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 24 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
the said 5 to 6 boys who had fought with the owner of the cyber
cafe. The incident in the case on hand, going by the FIR took place
on 23.03.2013 at 22:30 hours. The time of occurrence is not
disputed by the appellant/accused. The fact that PW8 and PW9
sustained injuries is also not disputed. His defence is that he had
not caused the injuries and that PW8 and PW9 were injured by
somebody else. The accused never has a case that initially some
quarrel had taken place in the cafe of PW8 at about 05:00-06:00
PM and that the said persons had come back to the scene of
occurrence on the same day at 22:30 hours and assaulted PW8 and
PW9. The appellant/accused also has no case that the injuries seen
on PW8 and PW9 were caused sometime in the evening between
05:00 and 06:00 p.m. In such circumstances, the testimony of
DW2 can never be believed.
30. Further, the medical evidence also corroborates the
version of PW8 and PW9. In Ext. PW11/A MLC of PW8, the
injuries noted are:- “a lacerated wound over the nasal septum
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 25 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
measuring 03 cm 0.5 cm 0.5 cm; CLW (contused lacerated
wound) over the lower lip measuring 1 cm 0.5 cm 0.25 cm and an
incisional wound on the right cheek”. In Ext. PW11/B MLC of
PW9, the injury noted is:- “sharp incisional wound on left side of
jaw extremely from angle of mouth to ear lobule” measuring 7 cm
0.5 cm 0.25 cm.
31. PW11 and PW13, the doctors testimony also
corroborate the version of PW8 and PW9. As noticed earlier, the
FIR says that the incident took place on 23.03.2013 at 10:30 p.m.
PW8 and PW9 are seen examined by the doctor on 24.03.2013 at
12:00 a.m. and 12:10 a.m. respectively. The injuries have been
noted to be fresh also.
32. Now the question is, what is/are the offence(s) made
out from the materials on record. The trial court has framed a
Charge only for the offence punishable under Section 307 read
with Section 34 IPC. However, the trial court, has concluded that
as far as the offence against PW8 is concerned, it is the offence
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 26 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
under Section 326 IPC that has been committed and as against
PW9, it is the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
The essential ingredients of an offence under Section 307 of the
IPC are : (i) the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) such
death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act
of the accused; (iii) 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 know 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. Section 307IPC makes it clear that to
attract the said offence the victim need not suffer any kind of
bodily injury. The offence to commit murder punishable under
Section 307 IPC is constituted by the concurrence of mens rea
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 27 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
followed by actus reus, to commit an attempt to murder though its
accomplishment or sufferance of any kind of bodily injury to the
victim is not a “sine qua non”. In other words, if a man commits an
act with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that if death had been caused, the offence would
have amounted to murder or the act itself is of such a nature as
would have caused death in the usual course of an event, but
something beyond his control prevented that result, his act would
constitute the offence punishable as an attempt to murder under
Section 307 IPC. (See Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, (2024) 15
SCC 42 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1763)
33. The evidence on record does show the injuries are
grievous as defined under Section 320 IPC. Clause ‘Sixthly’ of
Section 320 IPC says that if there is permanent disfiguration of the
head or face, the hurt would be a grievous hurt. The medical
records show that there was disfigurement of the face and hence, a
grievous injury as contemplated under Section 320 IPC. However,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 28 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
it is doubtful whether the materials on record make out a case of
attempt to commit murder as contemplated under Section 307 IPC.
Admittedly, the rival parties are close relatives. According to
PW12, on the date of the incident, while he was returning home,
A1 and A2 approached him and A1 demanded return of the money
that his late son had borrowed from the latter. This led to a quarrel
between PW12 and A1 and A1 slapping and kicking PW12. PW12
on being assaulted by A1 ran to his daughter’s house nearby and
sought their help. Thereafter, PW8, his daughter and PW9, his son-
in-law accompanied him back to the place of occurrence of the
initial incident. PW12 himself admits that he challenged A1 thus:-
“ab maar ke dikhao.” A1 then assaulted and injured PW8 and PW9
with a sharp-edged object. This Court hastens to add that it does
not in any way justify the act of A1. But in the facts and
circumstances, it was quite unnecessary for PW12 to have returned
to the place of occurrence and challenged A1 resulting in the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 29 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
subsequent incident. There does not appear to be an intention tocommit murder or cause the death of the witnesses in the case.
34. It is true that the weapon of offence has not been
recovered in the case on hand. However, it is well settled that
recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is
not a sine qua non for conviction, if the prosecution case is
otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt (See Rakesh v. State
of U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188). Further, non-examination of
independent witnesses is also not fatal to the prosecution case
when the testimony of injured witnesses is found to be reliable and
trustworthy (See Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
2021 SCC OnlineSC 363).
35. Though the evidence on record does not make out a
case under Section 307 IPC, the offence under Section 326 IPC is
certainly made out. To attract Section 326 IPC, the prosecution
must establish the following ingredients: (i) that the accused
voluntarily caused hurt; (ii) that the hurt caused amounts to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 30 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 IPC; and (iii) that
such grievous hurt was caused by means of any instrument for
shooting, stabbing or cutting, or by any dangerous weapon or
means. The medical evidence of PW11 and PW13 establishes that
PW8 and PW9 had sustained grievous injuries resulting in
disfigurement of their face. It is true that no Charge under Section
326 IPC was framed by the trial court against the appellant/A1.
Here it would be apposite to refer to Section 222 Cr.P.C. 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. Under Section 222(2) Cr.P.C., when a
person is charged with an offence, and 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. The meaning of a
“minor offence” for the purpose of Section 222 Cr.P.C. was dealt
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 31 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
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.
36. Section 222(1) Cr.P.C. is attracted in this case and,
therefore, no Charge has been framed under Section 326 IPC, by
virtue of the said provision, the appellant/ A1 is found guilty under
Section 326 IPC.
37. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly
allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant/ A1 for the
offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 32 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
set aside and the appellant/ A1 is found guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and
hence, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 2 years and to a fine of ₹ 10,000/- and in default of
payment of the fine, to simple imprisonment for 3 months.
38. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
MAY 25, 2026
kd
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 35/2016 Page 33 of 33
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17
[ad_1]
Source link
