Delhi High Court
Sonu@ Panchu@ Langda vs State on 7 May, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 04.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 07.05.2026
+ CRL.A. 76/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 138/2026
SONU@ PANCHU@ LANGDA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shailesh Chandra Jha,
(DHCLSC), Advocate.
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Brij Mohan, P.S. Subzi Mandi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 415(2) and 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accused no. 1 (A1) in
SC No. 1093/2018 on the file of the Special Judge, NDPS-01
(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment dated
05.06.2025 and order on sentence dated 09.09.2025 as per which
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 1 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable
under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 16.07.2018 at about
11.30 pm at Gautam Gali near House No. 513, Kabir Basti, Malka
Ganj, Delhi, the accused persons four in number (A1 to A4), in
furtherance of their common intention, abused PW2 and attempted
to murder him by stabbing him with a knife on his right thigh with
the intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if
the act caused death would be guilty of murder. Hence, as per the
charge-sheet/final report, the accused persons were alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506
read with 34 IPC.
3. On the basis of Ext.PW12/A FIS/FIR of CW1, given
on17.07.2018, Crime no. 208/2018, Subzi Mandi Police Station,
that is, Ext.PW1/A FIR was registered by PW1, Assistant Sub
Inspector. PW6, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 2 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
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.
4. When the accused persons 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. After hearing
both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 17.01.2019, framed a
Charge under Sections 307 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC,
which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded
not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 12were
examined, and Exts. PW1/A-D, PW3/A-B, PW5/A, PW6/A-P,
PW7/A-D,PW8/A1-B, PW9/A, PW12/A-C, P1-P3, Mark PW3/1,
Mark PW5/1, and Mark 11/1-24 were marked in support of the
case.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 3 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all
those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They claimed
that they had been falsely implicated in the case. A1 submitted that
he had no connection with the incident. One of the co-accused,
namely, Kapil @ Tola (A3), had given money to PW2.When he,
along with the other accused persons, went to the house of PW2 to
demand repayment of the loan, a heated exchange of words took
place. Upon PW2’s refusal to return the loan amount, they left the
place quietly. A1 submitted that he never caused any injury to
PW2 and that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of
PW2, who had refused to repay the loan to A3 and was attempting
to extort money from them. According to A1, he is unaware as to
how PW2 sustained injuries.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 4 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
7. After questioning the accused persons 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.
8. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the
accused. No documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgement dated 05.06.2025 found the accused
persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 308 read
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 5 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
with Section 34 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 09.09.2025, the
accused persons have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
a period of five years. Aggrieved, A1 has preferred this appeal.
10. This appeal was admitted on 21.01.2026. The sentence
was not suspended as the appellant/A1 has criminal antecedents. It
was submitted that out of the period of five years, the appellant/A1
has served more than four years. Hence, the appeal was taken up
for final hearing and the matter was heard.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 submitted that
the impugned judgment is vitiated by a complete misappreciation
of evidence. It was submitted that no recovery was effected from
A1. A1 had no role in the incident in which PW2 sustained
injuries. PW2 has been falsely implicated A1 due to the financial
dispute between the former and the co-accused. PW3, the brother
of PW2, has turned hostile. PW4 and PW5 have not witnessed the
incident. Apart from PW2, no other witness has supported the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 6 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
prosecution case. Hence, and the appellant/A1 is entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the
consistent testimony of PW2, read in conjunction with the medical
evidence on record, clearly establishes that the injury was caused
by A1 along with A2 to A4 in furtherance of their common
intention. 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.
PW12/A FIS/FIR of Jaspal, brother of PW2, cited as the first
charge witness (CW1) reads thus:- On the night of 16.07.2018, at
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 7 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
approximately 11:00 p.m., while he was sitting in the street outside
his house talking to his aunt, four boys, whom he is acquainted
with, namely, (1) Kapil (A3), also known as Bhola, son of
Laxman, residing at House No. 749, Nehru Kutia, Kabir Basti; (2)
Pawan (A2), son of Naval, residing at Nehru Kutia, Kabir Basti;
(3) Sonu (A1), also known as Langda, son of Vijay, residing at
Hotel Wali Gali, Kabir Basti; and (4) Suraj (A4), son of Sunil,
residing at Hotel Wali Gali, Kabir Basti, passed through the street
using abusive language. When he confronted them and questioned
them, all four of them began threatening him and continued with
their verbal abuse. Hearing the commotion, his younger brother,
Ghanshyam (PW2), came out of the house and asked the boys to
move on. In response, the four boys threatened to kill Ghanshyam
(PW2) and began beating the latter. Sonu (A1) and Pawan (A2)
grabbed his brother from both sides, while Suraj (A4) held him
from behind. Kapil (A3) then with a knife stabbed his brother,
Ghanshyam (PW2), on the right thigh. His brother began to bleed
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 8 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
profusely. After the incident, the four boys fled the scene. With the
help of neighbours, he took his brother to the Hindu Rao Hospital
for treatment, where the doctor referred him to the Safdarjung
Hospital.
16. CW1 is not seen examined. PW2, the injured, deposed
that on 16.07.2018 at about 11:00 p.m., while he was inside his
house, he heard screams. When he went outside, he saw that the
accused persons, namely, Pawan (A2), Tola (A3), Suraj (A4) and
Langra (A1), were abusing his brother Jaspal (CW1). He
intervened and asked Jaspal (CW1) to go inside, while requesting
the accused persons to leave. Although the accused persons
initially went towards the main roadside, they soon returned,
started abusing and engaged in a scuffle with him. Tola (A3)
threatened to kill him. Thereafter, Langra (A1) caught hold of his
left hand, Suraj (A4) held him by the neck from behind, and Pawan
(A2) caught his right hand. Meanwhile, Tola (A3) took out a knife
and tried to stab him on his abdomen region and when he tried to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 9 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
save himself, he sustained an injury on the upper portion of his
right thigh. On hearing the commotion, Chander Prakash (PW3),
his elder brother, arrived at the scene. The accused persons after
injuring him fled from the scene of occurrence. His brother took
him to the Hindu Rao Hospital, after which he lost consciousness.
He regained consciousness in the Safdarjung Hospital. PW3 told
him that he had initially been taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital
from where he was referred to the Safdarjung Hospital. PW2
identified the pant and underwear he was wearing at the relevant
time, and the same have been marked as Ext. P1(colly) and his
slipper as Ext. P2.
16.1. PW2 in his cross-examination deposed that at the time of
the incident, he was working in a thread factory. However, after
the incident he is unable to work now due to the disability
sustained. On the said day, he had infact gone to sleep after dinner
when he heard the commotion. When he intervened, Jaspal, his
brother was sitting in the gali outside his house, and all four
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 10 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
accused persons were standing near his brother. PW2 admitted that
he had no prior enmity with the accused persons. His bhabhi and
PW3 were inside the house and they came out on seeing him being
stabbed. Chander Prakash, his brother (PW3) had come to the
scene on seeing him injured and the latter had taken him to the
hospital. According to PW2, the cause of the incident was because
he intervened on hearing the accused persons abusing his brother.
His brother did not sustain any injury in the incident. He denied
the suggestion that no such incident had taken place, or that the
accused persons had not caused any injuries to him or that the
accused persons had been falsely implicated or that he was
deposing falsely.
17. PW3, the brother of PW2, deposed that at the time of
the incident, he was residing with his brothers Jaspal (CW1),
Ghanshyam (PW2), Kapil, his sister and mother. On the said date,
he was sleeping inside his house. On hearing noises, he went
outside and saw PW2 lying on the ground with blood oozing out of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 11 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
his thigh. With the help of Jitender Bhardwaj (PW4), his
neighbour, he took PW2 to the Hindu Rao Hospital on a
motorcycle. From Hindu Rao Hospital, Ghanshyam (PW2) was
referred to Safdarjung Hospital. PW3 deposed that he does not
know who had caused injuries to his brother, Ghanshyam (PW2).
The prosecutor then is seen to have sought permission of the trial
court to “cross-examine” PW3 on the ground that the latter was
resiling from his previous statement. The request was allowed. On
further examination by the prosecutor, PW3 deposed that he had
not stated to the police that his brother, Jaspal (CW1), who was
present with Ghanshyam (PW2) at the spot, had informed him that
Kapil @ Tola (A4), Pawan (A2), Sonu @ Langda (A1), residents
of Nehru Kutia, had assaulted PW2 with a knife and had fled the
scene.
18. PW4, the neighbour of PW2, was unable to recall the
exact date of the incident. According to him, the incident occurred
in July 2018. On the said day, at about 11:00 p.m., he heard a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 12 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
quarrel outside his house. When he went outside his house, he saw
that Jaspal (CW1) and Chander Prakash (PW3), who were his
neighbours, were trying to lift their brother Ghanshyam (PW2),
who was injured. He, along with PW3, took PW2 to the Hindu Rao
Hospital. PW4 was never cross-examined by any of the accused
persons
19. PW6, Sub-Inspector, Subzi Mandi police station,
deposed regarding the various steps taken by him during the course
of the investigation. He had arrested Sonu @ Pancha @ Langda
(A1), Pawan @ Saurabh @ Totla (A2), Kapil @ Siddhu @ Tola
(A3) and Suraj (A4)videExts. PW6/B, PW6/C, PW6/D and PW6/E
arrest memos, respectively. According to PW6, the disclosure
statements of the accused persons are Exts. PW6/J, PW6/K,
PW6/L and PW6/M, respectively. During the course of the
investigation, at the instance of Pawan (A2), the knife used for the
crime was recovered as per Ext. PW6/P seizure memo. The sketch
of the knife is Ext. PW6/O.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 13 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
20. PW9, Professor and Head of the Department, CTVS,
Vardhmana Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi, deposed that the investigating officer requested his
opinion on the nature of injuries recorded in the MLC. Vide Ext
PW9/A letter, he opined that the injuries suffered by PW2 were
grievous in nature. In his cross-examination, PW9 admitted that he
had not examined the patient, and his opinion as to the injury was
based on the MLC and the documents attached to the MLC.
21. I also make a brief reference to the testimony of
defence witnesses. DW1, a neighbour of PW2 as well as A1,
deposed that there was a financial dispute between PW2 and A3.
On the date of the incident, A3 went to the house of PW2 to get
back his money. PW2 refused to return the money and said that he
would never return the money and that A3 could do whatever he
wanted. Thereafter, the accused persons quietly left the spot. In his
presence, only a heated exchange of words had taken place, and
there was no quarrel. The next day, he came to know that PW2 had
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 14 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
sustained injuries and that he was in the hospital. He is unaware as
to how PW2 sustained the injuries.
22. DW2 has supported the version of DW1.
23. The appellant/A1 stands convicted of the offence
punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC. Section
308 deals with the offence of ‘attempt to commit culpable
homicide’. For invoking Section 308 IPC, it is not essential that
the injury actually caused should be sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death; what is required to be seen is
whether the act, irrespective of its result, was committed with such
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death
had ensued, the accused would have been guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. Further, factors such as the
nature of weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the severity
of the blow, the nature and size of the injury, the motive and the
conduct of the accused are relevant in determining the existence of
such intention or knowledge.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 15 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
24. The version of PW2 that he sustained injuries is
supported by PW3 his brother and PW4, his neighbour. Though
PW3 and PW4 do not speak of how or who caused the injury, they
admit that PW2 did sustain injuries. The appellant/A1 does not
have a case that PW2 did not sustain injuries. On the other hand,
his defence is that he is unaware as to how PW2 sustained the
injury. It is true that the MLC is not seen marked. But the
testimony of PW9, the doctor, that he had gone through the MLC
and the connected documents and that the injury caused to PW2
was a grievous one has not been discredited in any way as he was
never cross-examined. PW2 when examined stood by his case and
in the cross-examination nothing was brought out to discredit his
testimony. It was brought out in the cross-examination of PW2 that
there exists no enmity between PW2 and A1. Therefore, there is no
reason to disbelieve or discard his testimony. It is true that apart
from the testimony of PW2, there is no other witness who is
supporting his case. Even PW3, his brother does not support PW2,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 16 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
though the former does admit that the latter did sustain injuries.
The presence of PW2 at the scene of occurrence is not disputed
and hence, cannot be doubted. When once his presence at the scene
is not doubted, then his testimony assumes great importance unless
there are strong grounds, the same cannot be rejected on the basis
of some minor discrepancies. (See Shivalingappa Kallayanappa
v. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235).
25. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect
that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status
in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the
witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the
crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party
for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong
grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein. (See Abdul Sayeed v.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 17 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 and Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719). In the case on hand, no material
contradiction(s) or inconsistencies have been brought out in the
testimony of PW2 to disbelieve him.
26. The appellant/A1 has not denied his presence at the
scene of the occurrence on 16.07.2018. His only case is that he had
not caused the injuries. While questioned under Section 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., A1 has developed a new case of some financial dispute
between PW2 and A3. To establish the same, he examined DW1
and DW2. However, the appellant/A1 never had such a case when
PW2 was in the box. It was in the cross-examination of PW2, it
was brought out that no prior enmity existed between him and A1.
Despite that not even a suggestion is seen put to PW2 regarding
any financial dispute between him and A3. The defence version
appears to be an afterthought.
27. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/A1 that no recovery has been effected from A1. It is true
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 18 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
that no recovery was effected from A1. According to the
prosecution case, the knife used for the crime was recovered at the
instance of A2. I am not going to the said aspect in this appeal filed
by A1 alone. Be that as it may, 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). In the case on hand, I find no reason(s) to disbelieve
PW2 whose testimony has in no way been discredited. Though the
appellant/A1 has been charged for the offence punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, the trial court found him
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with
Section 34 IPC. No arguments were advanced on the said point.
28. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I find no
infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for an interference by
this Court.
29. The appeal sans merit is dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 19 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
30. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
MAY 7, 2026
Rs/mj
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 76/2026 Page 20 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:07.05.2026
15:03:56
