Delhi District Court
State vs Arman @ Waris Etc on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 433/2018)
FIR No. 65/2018
Police Station Kotwali
Charge-sheet filed under Section 307/34 IPC.
Charge framed against accused persons 307/34 IPC.
State Versus 1. Arman @ Waris (since PO),
S/o Sh. Bundan,
R/o Jamshed Ka Ghar, Tees Futa
Road, Gali No. 4, Near Bismillah
Masjid, Loni, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Javed,
S/o Sh. Jahul,
R/o Vegabond, Yamuna Bazar,
Delhi.
3. Anuj @ Haryana,
S/o Sh. Mahendra Kumar,
R/o Vajida, District Karnal,
Haryana.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 05.06.2018
Date of Arguments 03.02.2026
Judgment reserved on 03.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on 07.02.2026
Decision Convicted
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 1 of 49
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Javed and Anuj @ Haryana are
facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 307/34 IPC.
The story of the prosecution is that on 28.02.2018 at about 05:30
pm, near traffic light at Kodiya Pul, Chandni Chowk, Delhi
aforesaid two accused persons along with their co-accused
namely Arman @ Waris (since PO) and Honey (since
absconding) in furtherance of their common intention, fatally
attacked, stabbed and caused injuries on the person of one
Jagram by knife with such intention and in such circumstances
that, if by that act they had caused the death of above said person,
they would have been guilty of murder.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the
case are that on 28.02.2018, on receiving DD No. 33A, Ex. PW-4
regarding stabbing a person near Traffic Police Booth, Kodiya
Pul, Red Light, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, PW-13/SI Sanjay Rana
along with HC Anil went to the spot of incident, where PW-5 ASI
Yashvir had already apprehended two accused persons namely
Arman @ Waris and Javed with the help of public persons and it
was revealed that injured had been shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali
Hospital. Thereafter, after leaving PW-5 ASI Yashvir and HC
Anil to guard the accused persons, PW-13/SI Sanjay Rana
proceeded to hospital where HC Sunder Pal was found present.
Thereafter PW-13/SI Sanjay Rana collected MLC of injured
namely Jagram, who was found fit for statement. Thereafter,
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 2 of 49
PW-13/SI Sanjay Rana recorded statement of injured Jagram, Ex.
PW-2/A and obtained sealed parcels containing clothes of injured
with sample seal, which was seized by him vide seizure memo,
Ex. PW-13/A. Thereafter on the basis of complaint, Ex. PW-2/A
of injured Jagram, PW-13/SI Sanjay Rana prepared rukka and got
the present FIR registered at PS Kotwali through HC Sunder Pal.
Thereafter, PW-13/IO SI Sanjay Rana returned to the spot and
arrested accused persons namely Arman @ Waris and Javed,
conducted their personal search and recorded their disclosure
statements. IO also prepared sketch of knife having spoon
carved on it which was found in possession of accused Arman @
Waris and seized the same in the present case. During
investigation, IO also obtained PC remand of accused persons
namely Arman @ Waris and Javed and tried to trace the other
accused persons but they could not be traced.
3. During investigation, on 02.03.2018, accused Anuj @
Haryana was arrested from Park Company Bagh, Chandni
Chowk on the basis of secret information and thereafter IO also
conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure
statement. IO also got conducted TIP of accused Anuj @
Haryana in which injured/complainant duly identified him.
During investigation, IO also prepared site plan at instance of
injured, collected blood sample of injured, sent the exhibits to the
FSL for expert opinion and deposited MLC of injured to higher
centre i.e. LNJP Hospital for seeking final opinion about nature
of injury and tried to trace co-accused Honey but he could not be
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 3 of 49
traced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by
the IO before the court through SHO. After filing of charge-sheet,
IO also obtained final opinion about nature of injuries on the
MLC of injured which was opined as ‘dangerous’ in nature and
thereafter supplementary charge-sheet was also filed by the IO
before the court through SHO.
4. Vide order dated 25.05.2018, copy of the charge-sheet
under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to the accused persons by
the court of Ld. MM and vide order dated 04.06.2018, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Vide order dated 02.11.2018, the Ld. Predecessor was
pleased to frame charges under Sec. 307/34 IPC against accused
persons namely Arman @ Waris, Javed & Anuj @ Haryana to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During trial, accused Arman @ Waris absconded and he
was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 30.01.2024.
Thus, the judgment in the present case is being pronounced only
qua accused persons namely Javed & Anuj @ Haryana.
7. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature
has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:-
8. PW-1 Dr. Valvi Kuldeep Tapsing, Casualty Medical
Officer, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi deposed that on
28.02.2018 at about 06:33 pm, one Jagram was brought to the
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 4 of 49
hospital with alleged history of assault by a sharp object. He
further deposed that he examined the patient in Casualty vide
MLC No. 506/18, Ex. PW-1/A and the patient was referred to
Surgery & Medicine Department for further treatment and
management. He also deposed that he had taken clothes of
injured and kept the same in a parcel which was sealed with the
seal of hospital and he handed over the said parcel to the
Investigating Officer. This witness was not cross-examined on
behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
9. PW-2 Sh. Jagram, was the complainant/injured in the
persent case. He deposed that he used to sell snacks (golgappe)
on a handcart (rehri) at Kodiya Pul, Delhi. He deposed that on
28.02.2018 at about 05:30 pm, four boys came to his rehri for
eating golgappe and he served the same to them. He further
deposed that after eating, they started leaving the spot without
paying money to him. He further deposed that he stopped them
and asked for money and the said boys started hurling abuses at
him and they threatened him. He further deposed that they
questioned him as to how he mustered courage to demand money
from them and they turned turtle his rehri. He further deposed
that he tried to stop them, on which one of them exhorted others
by saying ‘pakro saale ko aaj ise maja chakhate hai’. He further
deposed that three boys caught hold of him and the first boy who
had exhorted others, took out a knife and stabbed the knife in his
abdomen at two or three places. He further deposed that he raised
alarm and other rehri vendors and two police officers came there.
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 5 of 49
He further deposed that two boys including the boy who stabbed
him were apprehended and remaining two boys succeeded in
running away from there. He further deposed that on inquiry,
name of assailant was revealed as Arman and the name of other
boy was revealed as Javed. He further deposed that he was
shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital by an auto-rickshaw. He
further deposed that in the hospital, police recorded his
statement, Ex. PW-2/A. He also deposed that from Aruna Asaf
Ali hospital, he was referred to LNJP Hospital but the doctors of
LNJP hospital were on strike so he was referred to RML Hospital
where he remained admitted till 06.03.2018. He further deposed
that once, he was called by Police and he went to Tihar Jail
where he had identified accused Anuj during TIP proceedings.
He further deposed that on 16.04.2018, on the directions of
Police Officers, he went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where his
blood sample was taken by doctors. This witness correctly
identified accused persons during his deposition in the court. In
his cross-examination, he deposed that Tasleem used to run Rehri
adjacent to his Rehri. He also deposed that he was taken to the
hospital after ten minutes of incident. He also deposed that doctor
did not ask from him about the incident. He also deposed that he
regained consciousness after three or four days and he had
become unconscious at the spot itself. He also deposed that he
stayed at his village for about four or five months before coming
to Delhi. He also deposed that he did not know the accused
persons prior to the date of incident and on the date of incident,
accused persons had come to his Rehri for the first time. He
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 6 of 49
denied the suggestion that accused Anuj had been shown to him
before his TIP. He also deposed that when accused persons were
having golgappas at his Rehri, no other customer was present. He
also deposed that he had not seen any of the accused persons in
the Police Station. He denied the suggestion that some other
persons had stabbed him. He also denied the suggestion that
Tasleem was a planted witness or that Tasleem was not present at
the time of incident.
10. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem, was the eyewitness of the incident. He
deposed that he used to sell eggs on a Rehri at Kodiya Pul, Delhi
and injured namely Jagram used to sell golgappe on Rehri near
his Rehri. He further deposed that on 28.02.2018, at about 05:30
pm, four boys were eating golgappe at the Rehri of Jagram. He
further deposed that after serving golgappe to those boys, Jagram
demanded money for golgappe from those boys and on this, all
the four boys became annoyed and threatened Jagram and turned
turtle the Rehri of Jagram. He further deposed that three boys
caught hold of Jagram and the fourth one took out a knife from
the pocket of his trousers and gave two or three knife blows in
the abdomen of Jagram. He further deposed that Jagram raised an
alram and fell on the ground and some public persons and two
police officers came there. He further deposed that two boys
including the boy who stabbed Jagram were apprehended and
remaining two boys succeeded in running away from the spot. He
further deposed that one police officer shifted injured Jagram to
the hospital by an auto rickshaw. He further deposed that in the
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 7 of 49
hospital, shirt of Jagram was seized by doctor and was handed
over to police and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-3/A. He further deposed that after some time, he returned to
the spot where Investigating Officer prepared sketch, Ex. PW-3/B
of the knife which was recovered from the assailant and the knife
was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/C. He further deposed
that both the accused persons who were apprehended at the spot
were arrested by the IO. He proved arrest memos and personal
search memos of accused persons namely Arman @ Waris and
Javed as Ex. PW-3/D to Ex. PW-3/G. This witness correctly
identified all the three accused persons as well as case property in
the court during his deposition. In his cross-examination, he
deposed that police recorded his statement in the hospital. He
also deposed that he stayed in the hospital for about three hours.
He also deposed that no writing work was done at the spot in his
presence. He deposed that he did not intervene in quarrel as
accused was having knife. He denied the suggestion that some
other persons had caused injuries to Jagram. He also denied the
suggestion that he with the connivance of Jagram had falsely
implicated the accused persons in this case. He also deposed that
Jagram was taken to the hospital by an auto-rickshaw and he had
accompanied him apart from one constable. He also deposed that
Jagram was unconscious at that time and he did not know when
Jagram had regained consiciousness in the hospital. He also
deposed that statement of Jagram was not recorded in his
presence. He deposed that blood was oozing out from the body of
Jagram and the seat of auto-rickshaw was stained with blood. He
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 8 of 49
also deposed that his clothes were not stained with blood as he
was sitting on a side in auto-rickshaw. He also deposed that he
had signed the documents in the hospital. He denied the
suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Jagram
and investigating officer.
11. PW-4 ASI Gyan Prakash was the Duty Officer at PS
Kotwali. He proved copy of DD No. 33A in respect of stabbing
near Traffic signal, Kodiapul, Delhi as Ex. PW-4/A. He also
proved copy of present FIR, his endorsement on rukka and
certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act as Ex.
PW-4/B to Ex. PW-4/D. He also proved copy of DD No. 42 with
respect to registration of FIR as Ex. PW-4/E. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that both the DD entries
were manipulated or that the FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated.
He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the
instance of Investigating Officer.
12. PW-5 ASI Yashvir Singh, deposed that on 28.02.2018, he
along with HC Sunder Pal was on patrolling duty and was
present at Kodiapul. He further deposed that at about 05:30 pm,
they heard some noise and went to the spot and saw that some
public persons were beating a person. He further deposed that
they rushed there and apprehended two persons and the injured
person was sent to the hospital by a TSR. He further deposed that
on inquiry, the names of those two assailants were revealed as
Arman @ Waris and Javed. He further deposed that in the
meantime, SI Sanjay Rana along with HC Anil came to the spot
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 9 of 49
and SI Sanjay left him there to guard the spot and he went to the
hospital. He further deposed that after sometime, SI Sanjay Rana
returned to spot along with complainant and he had recovered a
knife from accused Arman @ Waris. He further deposed that he
handed over custody of both the accused persons and the knife to
SI Sanjay Rana. He further deposed that SI Sanjay Rana
interrogated accused persons and arrested them in the present
case. He proved arrest memos and personal search memos of
both accused persons namely Arman @ Waris and Javed as Ex.
PW-3/D to Ex. PW-3/G. He also proved sketch of knife
recovered from possession of accused Arman @ Waris and its
seizure memo as Ex. PW-3/B & Ex. PW-3/A. This witness
correctly identified both the accused persons as well as case
property during his deposition before the court. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that they apprehended both the accused
persons simultaneously. He also deposed that ten or twenty
public persons were passing through the spot at that time and
some of them had stayed at the spot. He also deposed that only
one public person had assisted them and they sent injured person
to the hospital through him. He also deposed that he did not make
any effort to join public persons in the proceedings. He also
deposed that he did not remember whether Investigating Officer
had made any such effort. He also deposed that he lifted the
injured person from the spot and public persons assisted him in
shifting the injured to the TSR from the spot. He also deposed
that his clothes were not stained with blood. He denied the
suggestion that if someone shifts a person smeared with blood in
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 10 of 49
TSR, the clothes of the person who was shifting the injured
person would certainly be smeared with blood. He denied the
suggestion that knife was planted one. He admitted that chance
print was not taken from the knife before it was sealed. He
denied the suggestion that there was no fingerprint of the accused
on the knife. He also denied the suggestion that accused Javed
was not involved in any case.
13. PW-6 HC Anil, deposed that on 28.02.2018, the duty
officer handed over DD No. 33A to him at about 06:00 pm and
sent him to the spot i.e. Kodiapul. He further deposed that he
reached there where SI Sanjay Rana, ASI Yashbir and two
accused persons were present. He further deposed that after
leaving him and ASI Yashbir at the spot, SI Sanjay Rana went to
the hospital and after sometime, he along with Tasleem came to
the spot. He further deposed that ASI Yashbir handed over the
knife to SI Sanjay Rana which was seized by him vide seizure
memo Ex. PW-3/C. He further deposed that the sketch of knife
was also prepared by SI Sanjay Rana as Ex. PW-3/B. He further
deposed that both the accused persons namely Arman @ Waris
and Javed were interrogated and arrested in the present case. He
proved arrest memos and personal search memos of both the
accused persons as Ex. PW-3/D to Ex. PW-3/G. This witness
correctly identified both the accused persons as well as case
properties during his deposition before the court. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that no incident had taken place in his
presence. He denied the suggestion that he never joined the
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 11 of 49
investigation of this case. He also denied the suggestion that both
the accused persons were wrongly arrested in this case. He also
denied the suggestion that all the papers were prepared at police
station.
14. PW-7 HC Sunder Pal, deposed that on 28.02.2018, he
along with Yashbir was on patrolling duty and was present at
Kodiapul. He further deposed that at about 05:30 pm, they heard
some noise and went to the spot and saw that some public
persons were beating a person near a handcart. He further
deposed that they rushed there and apprehended two persons and
the injured person was taken to the hospital by him in a TSR. He
further deposed that after some time, SI Sanjay Rana came to the
hospital and collected MLC of injured persons. He further
deposed that doctor handed over blood stained clothes of injured
to the IO which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-3/A. He also deposed that SI Sanjay Rana prepared tehrir
and sent him to Police Station for registration of FIR. He further
deposed that he got the case registered and returned to the spot
and he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Sanjay
Rana. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he received
rukka from SI Sanjay Rana at 08:35 pm. He also deposed that the
rukka was prepared at the hospital. He also deposed that no other
proceeding of the case was conducted in his presence. He denied
the suggestion that he never took rukka to the police station. He
also denied the suggestion that all the papers of this case were
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 12 of 49
prepared at police station. He also denied the suggestion that
accused Javed was not involved in any case.
15. PW-8 Ct. Surender, deposed that on 02.03.2018, he joined
the investigation of this case along with SI Sanjay Rana. He
further deposed that accused Javed and Arman were taken out
from lock-up and both of them told the IO that they could get
their associate arrested. He further deposed that they visited
Kodiya Pul and Town Hall Road in search of the third accused at
the instance of accused persons namely Javed and Arman. He
further deposed that finally, they reached Company Bagh where a
boy was found sitting on a bench and at instance of both accused
persons, he was apprehended and the name of said boy was
revealed as Anuj @ Haryana. He proved arrest memo and
personal search of accused Anuj @ Haryana exhibited as Ex.
PW-8/A & Ex. PW-8/B. This witness correctly identified all the
three accused persons during his deposition before the court. In
his cross-examination, he deposed that he was not aware of
description or any other identification mark of accused Anuj at
the time of leaving the police station. He admitted that no public
person was joined in the investigation. He denied the suggestion
that accused Anuj was not arrested in the manner as stated by
him. He also denied the suggestion that accused Anuj was not
apprehended on 02.03.2018. He also denied the suggestion that
accused Arman @ Waris did not get accused Anuj arrested as he
was not his accomplice.
16. PW-9 HC Rajender Soni, deposed that on 02.03.2018, he
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 13 of 49
joined the investigation in the present case along with IO. He
narrated about apprehension of accused Anuj @ Haryana from
Company Bagh at instance of accused persons namely Arman @
Waris and Javed on the lines of PW-8 Ct. Surender and proved
his arrest memo and personal search memo as Ex. PW-8/A & Ex.
PW-8/B. This witness correctly identified all the accused persons
during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination,
he deposed that he was not aware of description or any other
identification mark of accused Anuj at the time of leaving the
police station. He admitted that no public person was joined in
the investigation. He denied the suggestion that accused Anuj
was not arrested in the manner as stated by him. He also denied
the suggestion that accused Anuj was not apprehended on
02.03.2018. He also denied the suggestion that accused Arman @
Waris did not get accused Anuj arrested as he was not his
accomplice.
17. PW-10 HC Jitender, was MHC(M) at PS Kotwali. He
proved entries made by him in register no. 19 & 21 regarding
movement of case properties as Ex. PW-10/A to Ex. PW-10/C.
He also proved acknowledgment of FSL regarding acceptance of
case as Ex. PW-10/D. In his cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that abovesaid entries in register no. 19 were
manipulated by him on the direction of the Investigating Officer.
He also denied the suggestion that SI Sanjay Rana did not deposit
any case property with him.
18. PW-11 Ms. Poonam Sharma, Assistant Director (Biology),
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 14 of 49
proved her detailed DNA report as Ex. PW-11/A. She also
deposed that the DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the
exhibits provided; was sufficient to conclude that the DNA
profile generated from the source of exhibit no. 1 (weapon of
offence) and exhibit no. 2 (shirt of injured person) was similar to
the DNA profile from the source of exhibit no. 3 (blood sample
on gauze piece). In her cross-examination, she deposed that if
blood sample was not properly preserved, it become putrefied.
She denied the suggestion that exhibits were manipulated in
order to falsely implicate the accused. She also denied the
suggestion that her report was not based on actual examination of
the exhibits.
19. PW-12 HC Uday Singh, deposed that in April, 2018, on the
direction of IO, he obtained two sealed parcels along with two
sample seal from MHC(M) vide RC No. 68/21/18, Ex PW-10/C
and deposited the same at FSL. He also proved acknowledgment
of FSL regarding deposite of exhibits as Ex. PW-10/D. In his
cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not
authorized to obtain sealed parcels or that he had tempered with
the same.
20. PW-13 SI Sanjay Rana, was the Investigating Officer in
the present case. He summed up the case of prosecution by
narrating the investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on
28.02.2018, on receiving DD No. 33A, Ex. PW-4 regarding
stabbing a person near Traffic Police Booth, Kodiya Pul, Red
Light, Chandni Chowk, Delhi he along with HC Anil went to the
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 15 of 49
spot of incident, where PW-5 ASI Yashvir had already
apprehended two persons namely Arman @ Waris and Javed with
the help of public persons and it was revealed that injured had
been shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. He further deposed that
after leaving PW-5 ASI Yashvir and HC Anil to guard the
accused persons, he proceeded to hospital where HC Sunder Pal
was found present. He further deposed that he collected MLC of
injured namely Jagram, who was found fit for statement. He
further deposed that he recorded complaint of injured Jagram,
Ex. PW-2/A and obtained sealed parcels containing clothes of
injured with sample seal, which was seized by him vide seizure
memo, Ex. PW-13/A. He further deposed that on the basis of
complaint, Ex. PW-2/A of injured Jagram, he prepared rukka and
got the present FIR registered at PS Kotwali through HC Sunder
Pal. He further deposed that he returned to the spot and arrested
accused persons namely Arman @ Waris and Javed, conducted
their personal search and recorded their disclosure statements. He
also deposed that he prepared sketch of knife having spoon
carved which was found in possession of accused Arman @
Waris and seized the same in the present case. He further deposed
that he obtained PC remand of accused persons namely Arman @
Waris and Javed and tried to trace the other accused persons but
they could not be traced. He further deposed that during
investigation, on 02.03.2018, accused Anuj @ Haryana was
arrested from Park Company Bagh, Chandni Chowk on the basis
of secret information and thereafter he also conducted his
personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. He further
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 16 of 49
deposed that he also got conducted TIP of accused Anuj @
Haryana in which injured/complainant duly identified him. He
further deposed that during investigation, he also prepared site
plan at instance of injured, collected blood sample of injured,
sent the exhibits to the FSL for expert opinion and deposited
MLC of injured to higher centre i.e. LNJP Hospital for seeking
final opinion about nature of injury and tried to apprehend co-
accused Honey but he could not be apprehended. He also
deposed that he obtained final opinion regarding nature of
injuries on the MLC of injured which was opined as ‘dangerous’
in nature. This witness correctly identified accused persons as
well as case properties during his deposition before the court.
This witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of accused
persons. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not call
the Crime Team on the spot and no inspection by the Crime Team
was conducted of the spot as well as on rehdi of the complainant.
He deposed that he recorded statement, Ex. PW-2/A of injured in
the hospital. He also deposed that he did not take the statement of
injured/complainant, Ex. PW-2/A in front of doctor and also the
statement was not countersigned or attested by the doctor. He
admitted that the seizure memo, Ex. PW-3/A did not reflect the
name of doctor from whom he seized the said shirt. He also
deposed that when he went to the hospital, the alleged knife Ex.
P-2 was within the custody of ASI Yashvir. He admitted that
knife was not recovered in his presence from the accused person.
He also deposed that he left the hospital with public person
Tasleem Alam for going to the spot at around 08:45 pm. He also
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 17 of 49
deposed that he sent the rukka from the hospital itself through
HC Sunder. He admitted that he did not investigate the CDRs and
the tower location of the injured/complainant Jagram and private
person Tasleem. He also admitted that accused Javed was a
vagabond and he did not investigate whether the accused Javed
was illiterate. He also admitted that he did not investigate the
CDR and tower location with respect to the mobile phone
recovered from accused Javed in his personal search vide, Ex.
PW-3/G. He denied the suggestion that alleged knife, Ex. P-2
was planted by him to falsely implicate the accused persons and
that is why he deliberately did not investigate the spoons and the
rehdi of injured/complainant Jagram. He also admitted that no
investigation with respect to the rehdi of witness Tasleem Alam
was conducted by him. He also admitted that he did not sign Ex.
PW-10/A i.e. entry no. 5449 in register no. 19 when he deposited
the exhibits in Malkhana. He admitted that site plan, Ex.
PW-13/C bore date 16.04.2018 under his signature as the same
was made on the same date. Voluntarily, he deposed that as the
complainant previously went to his village in Madhya Pradesh
after the discharge from the hospital and returned back Delhi
before 16.04.2018. He also deposed that accused Anuj @
Haryana was arrested at around 05:00-06:00 pm. He admitted
that many public persons were passing through the park. He also
admitted that none of them was got joined in the proceedings at
that time. He denied the suggestion that he had taken photograph
of Anuj @ Haryana or that same were shown to injured.
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 18 of 49
21. PW-14 Inspector Deepak Kumar, deposed that in March,
2018, further investigation of this case was assigned to him and
he moved application, Ex. PW-14/A for TIP of accused Anuj @
Haryana, which was got conducted on 09.03.2018. He further
deposed that he also deposited MLC of injured to higher
centre/RML Hospital for seeking final nature of injury. He
further deposed that he obtained final nature of injury on the
MLC which was opined as ‘dangerous’ vide discharge summary
report, Ex. PW-14/B. He deposed that he also obtained FSL
result, Ex. PW-11/A and filed the same in the court by way of
supplementary charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that he did not sign, Ex. PW-10/A i.e. entry no. 5449 in
register no. 19 when he retrieved the exhibits from Malkhana to
be deposited at FSL. He denied the suggestion that entries, Ex.
PW-10/A & Ex. PW-10/B in register no. 19 were false documents
prepared to falsely implicate the accused persons. He admitted
that no exhibits i.e. Ex. P-2 (knife) and Ex. P-1 (shirt) were
placed before the concerned doctor of higher Centre/RML
Hospital while seeking the nature of final injury. He denied the
suggestion that the nature of injury on the MLC opined as
dangerous vide discharge summary report, Ex. PW-14/B was a
false and negative opinion given by doctor at his instance to
falsely implicate the accused persons and to raise its gravity.
22. PW-15 Dr. Atul Singh, Senior Resident, General Surgery,
RML Hospital deposed that he had seen discharge summary qua
Jagram, Male, aged 49 years from judicial record. He further
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 19 of 49
deposed that as per record, patient was admitted on 01.03.2018 in
hospital with history of bleeding from left chest region following
penetrating injury. He further deposed that as per record, on local
examination, two wounds of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm and 03 cm x .5
cm over left chest region. He further deposed that as per record,
nature of injury was opined as dangerous by SR (General
Surgery) at point X on discharge summary, Ex. PW-14/B. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that he had never worked with Dr.
H. K. Khowal and did not have knowledge with respect to
discharge summary, Ex. PW-14/B. He admitted that discharge
summary, Ex. PW-14/B was not made in his presence.
23. During trial, accused Anuj @ Haryana admitted the
genuineness of his TIP proceedings dated 09.03.2018 as Ex.
PX-1, under Sec. 294 Cr.PC.
24. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements
of accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein
they denied all the charges against them. Accused Javed claimed
that he was illiterate person and was living as vagabond at
Yamuna Bazar. He further claimed that he had no one in his
family and he used to survive by begging in the area. He also
claimed that one police official whose name he did not know
took him to the police station and falsely implicated him in the
present case. He also claimed that his thumb impression were
taken on blank papers by the police officials. He also claimed
that no recovery was made from him or at his instance and all the
memos in the present case were false and fabricated created by
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 20 of 49
IO to falsely implicated him. He also claimed that he was
innocent and was not involved in any other case. Accused Anuj
@ Haryana claimed himself to be innocent. He also claimed that
false case had been levelled against him to falsely implicate him
in the present case. Accused persons did not lead any defence
evidence in the present case.
25. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Shreyas Pragyanan,
Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Pulkit Jain, Ld. Amicus Curie for
accused Javed and Sh. R. K. Saini, Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence
Counsel for accused Anuj @ Haryana.
26. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have
corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate his
submissions, he argued the PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram
as well as PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam have supported the case of the
prosecution and they have corroborated each other’s versions. He
further argued that PW-5 ASI Yashbir and PW-7 HC Sunder Pal
reached at the spot of incident when the incident was going on
and they apprehended two accused persons and they have also
corroborated the versions of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram and eyewitness PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam. He further
argued that PW-1 Dr. Valvi Kuldeep Tapsing and PW-15 Dr. Atul
Singh have proved the MLC of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram and the nature of injuries on person of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram. He argued that the nature
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 21 of 49
of injury has been opined as ‘dangerous’ in nature and hence it
was dangerous to the life of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram. He further argued that PW-11 Ms. Poonam Sharma has
proved the FSL report which is against the accused persons. He
further argued that motive for the commission of offence i.e.
asking for the payment for golgappa from the accused persons
and their annoyance in this regard has been duly proved by the
prosecution. He further argued that all the proceedings have been
duly proved by the police witnesses and all the prosecution
witnesses are of the sterling quality and hence accused persons
should be convicted under Section 307/34 IPC.
27. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons
argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate their point, they argued
that there are contradictions in the testimonies of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and PW-3 Sh. Tasleem
Alam. They further argued that discharge summary has been
proved by doctor who had not prepared the same and hence same
cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons. They
further argued that the date of discharge has not been mentioned
in the discharge summary. They further argued that no opinion
with respect to the weapon has been obtained by the IO. They
further argued that no fingerprints were lifted from the weapon of
offence. They further argued that the bloodstained shirt of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram as well as weapon of
offence i.e. knife were not shown to him at the time of recording
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 22 of 49
of his testimony. They further argued that accused persons had no
intention to commit the alleged offence. They also argued that
since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused
persons beyond reasonable doubts, both the accused persons
should be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307/34
IPC.
28. In the present case, charge under Sec. 307/34 IPC has been
framed against the accused. This Section has been elaborated as
under:-
307. Attempt to murder:-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death,
he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is cause to
any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts: When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he
may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such personsFIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 23 of 49
is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.
29. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence
led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions
of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the
Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Amicus Curie for accused Javed
as well as Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused
Anuj @ Haryana.
30. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and PW-3 Sh.
Tasleem Alam are the star witnesses of the prosecution as
PW-2/complainant Sh. Jagram is the injured in the present case
while PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam is the eyewitness of the alleged
incident. The testimonies of PW-2/complainant Sh. Jagram and
PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam have to be appreciated as per the
established principles of law.
31. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram deposed that in
February, 2018, he used to sell snacks (golgappe) on a rehri at
Kodiya Pul, Delhi. He also deposed that Tasleem used to run
rehri adjacent to his rehri. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam corroborated
the version of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram by deposing
that in February, 2018 he used to sell eggs on his rehri at Kodiya
Pul, Delhi. He also deposed that PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram was selling golgappe at his rehri on 28.02.2018 at the
spot. PW-5 ASI Yashvir in his cross-examination deposed that
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 24 of 49
one or two handcarts were noticed by him at the spot of incident.
PW-7 HC Sunder Pal also deposed that some public persons were
beating a person near a handcart. Thus, from the testimonies of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram, PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam,
PW-5 ASI Yashvir & PW-7 HC Sunder Pal, it has come on record
that PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram used to sell golgappe
on his rehri at Kodiya Pul, Delhi and PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam
used to sell eggs on his rehri at Kodiya Pul, Delhi and they were
present at the spot of incident along with their rehries at the time
of incident. Accused persons have failed to put any dent on the
versions of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and PW-3 Sh.
Tasleem Alam with respect to the abovesaid fact.
32. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram deposed that on
28.02.2018 at about 05:30 pm, four boys came on his rehri for
eating golgappe and he served same to them. He further deposed
that after eating the said boys started leaving the spot without
paying money to him. He further deposed that he stopped them
and asked for his money. He further deposed that the said boys
started hurling abuses to him and they threatened him. He also
deposed that they questioned him as to how he mustered courage
to demand money from them and they turned turtle his rehri.
PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam has corroborated the version of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram by deposing that on
28.02.2018 at about 05:30 pm four boys were eating golgappe at
rehri of Jagram and after serving the golgappe to those boys,
Jagram demanded money for golgappe from those boys on which
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 25 of 49
all the four boys became annoyed and threatened Jagram and
turned turtle rehri of Jagram. There is complete consistency in
the testimonies of both the eyewitnesses i.e.
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and PW-3 Sh. Tasleem
Alam with respect to eating of golgappe by four boys, non-
payment of golgappe by the said four boys, demanding of money
by PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram, threatening PW-2/
complainant/injured Sh. Jagram by said four boys and turning
turtle the rehri of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram by the
said four boys. Accused persons have failed to create any doubt
with respect to the abovesaid facts through the cross-examination
of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and PW-3 Sh. Tasleem
Alam.
33. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram deposed that he
tried to stop the said boys (accused persons) on which one of
them exhorted others by saying ‘pakro saale ko aaj ise maza
chakhate hai’. He further deposed that three boys caught hold of
him and the first boy who had exhorted others, took out a knife
and stabbed the knife in his abdomen at two or three places.
PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam has corroborated the version of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram by deposing that three
boys caught hold of Jagram and fourth one took out one knife
from the pocket of his trousers and gave two or three knife blows
in the abdomen of Jagram. PW-1 Dr. Valvi Kuldeep Tapsing has
proved the MLC of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram as Ex.
PW-1/A in which the stab injuries have been mentioned. Thus,
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 26 of 49
PW-1 Dr. Valvi Kuldeep Tapsing has medically corroborated the
versions of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram & PW-3 Sh.
Tasleem Alam. There is complete consistency in the testimonies
of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram & PW-3 Sh. Tasleem
Alam and they have corroborated each other’s versions with
respect to the abovesaid facts and accused persons have failed to
create any doubt with respect to the veracity of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and PW-3 Sh. Tasleem
Alam.
34. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram deposed that he
raised alarm and other rehri vendors and two police officers came
there. He further deposed that two boys including the boy who
stabbed him were apprehended and remaining two boys
succeeded in running away from there. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam
has corroborated the version of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram by deposing that Jagram raised an alarm and fell on the
ground. He further deposed that some public persons and two
police officers came there and two boys including the boy who
stabbed Jagram were apprehended and remaining two boys
succeeded in running away from the spot. PW-5 ASI Yashvir
deposed that on 28.02.2018, he along with HC Sunder Pal was on
patrolling duty at Kodiya Pul and at about 05:30 pm, they heard
some noise and went to the spot. He further deposed that he saw
that some public persons were beating a person and they rushed
there and apprehended two persons. PW-7 HC Sunder Pal has
corroborated the version of PW-5 ASI Yashvir by deposing that
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 27 of 49
on 28.02.2018 at about 05:30 pm, he was on patrolling with ASI
Yashvir at Kodiya Pul and at that time they heard some noise and
went to the spot. He further deposed that he saw that some public
persons were beating a person near handcart and they rushed
there and apprehended two persons. There is complete
consistency in the testimonies of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram, PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam, PW-5 ASI Yashvir Singh &
PW-7 HC Sunder Pal with respect to the same facts and chain of
events. Accused persons through the cross-examination of
abovesaid witnesses have failed to put any dent on the
prosecution story as deposed by the abovesaid witnesses.
35. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram deposed that on
inquiry name of the assailants was revealed as Arman (since PO)
and name of other boy who was also apprehended disclosed his
name as Javed. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram deposed
that he was shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital in an Auto
rickshaw and from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, he was referred to
LNJP Hospital and since the doctors of LNJP Hospital were on
strike and hence he was referred to RML Hospital where he was
remained admitted till 06.03.2018. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam
deposed that one police officer shifted injured Jagram to hospital
by an auto rickshaw. PW-5 ASI Yashvir also deposed that names
of two assailants was revealed as Arman @ Waris (since PO) and
Javed. He also deposed that the injured was sent to hospital by
TSR. PW-7 HC Sunder Pal deposed that the injured was taken to
hospital by him in TSR. As per MLC of PW-2/complainant/
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 28 of 49
injured Sh. Jagram, Ex. PW-1/A, injured Jagram was brought to
the hospital by HC Sunder Pal, No. 1805/N on 28.02.2018 at
about 06:33 pm. Thus, there is complete consistency in the
testimonies of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram, PW-3 Sh.
Tasleem Alam, PW-5 ASI Yashvir & PW-7 HC Sunder Pal with
respect to the facts deposed by the abovesaid witnesses and the
chain of events. Accused persons have failed to put any dent on
the prosecution story as well as on the veracity of abovesaid
witnesses with respect to the abovesaid facts.
36. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and PW-3 Sh.
Tasleem Alam have identified the accused persons namely Arman
@ Waris (since PO), Javed & Anuj @ Haryana at the time of
recording of their testimonies. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram deposed that once he was called by the Police and he
went to Tihar Jail where he had identified accused Anuj during
TIP proceedings. Moreover, accused Anuj @ Haryana has also
admitted his TIP proceedings exhibited as Ex. PX-1 under Sec.
294 Cr.PC. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established the
identity of accused persons with respect to the commission of
offence by them.
37. Ld. Defence counsels have argued that the prosecution has
failed to prove the motive for the commission of offence. Ld.
Addl. PP for the State has argued that the motive for the
commission of offence has been duly proved by the prosecution.
Motive is relevant under Sec. 8 of The Indian Evidence Act.
Motive moves a man to do a particular work. Generally there
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 29 of 49
can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8 of
Evidence Act, several factors including preparation, previous
threat, previous altercation, previous litigation between the
accused and the victim becomes relevant.
38. The mere existence of motive is by itself is not an
incriminating circumstance. Motive cannot be a substitute of
proof however it is an corroborating factor in proving the case of
the prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence is of
vital importance in a criminal trial and in cases based on
circumstantial evidence motive itself will be a circumstance
which the Court has to consider deeply. The existence of motive
which operates in the mind of perpetrator may not be known to
others and hence it has to be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of this case.
39. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo
Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3
SCC 654 observed as under:-
“15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as
an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt
of accused is fairly well settle by a long line of
decision of this Court. These decisions have made a
clear distinction between cases where the
prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence
on one hand and those were relies upon the
testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In theFIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 30 of 49
former category of cases proof of motive is given the
importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself
constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon
which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive,
however, recedes into background in cases where the
prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of
the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a
proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye
witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version
given by them is credible, absence of evidence to
prove the motive is rendered inconsequential.
Conversely, even if the prosecution succeeds in
establishing a strong motive for the commission of
the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is
found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of
motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for
convicting the accused. That does not, however,
mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests
on an eye witness account does not lend strength to
the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its
ultimate conclusion proof of motive in such a
situation certainly helps the prosecution and
supports the eye witnesses.”
40. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment tilted as
Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Punjab cited as (1996) 9 SCC 233
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 31 of 49
observed as under:-
“7…. The motives may be minor but nonetheless
they did provide occasion for attack on the deceased
by the appellants. That apart, even in absence of
motive, the guilt of culprit can be established in a
given case if the other evidence on record is
trustworthy in the absence of proof of motive has
never been considered as fatal to the prosecution
case where the ocular evidence is found reliable”.
41. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
Chunni Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh cited as (2010) SCC 496
observed as under:-
“12. This in our estimation is the reason and motive
for the crime and not the one which was advanced by
the Counsel appearing for the appellant, or by the
time the incident had taken place, the deceased had
legalized his relationship and married the said
Chandrakaliya therby giving legal status to PW-1 and
PW-2 as his sons. In that situation, there was no
possibility at all of the appellant inheriting the
property of his uncle and therefore the plea taken by
the appellant regarding motive appears to be without
merit. Rather on the other hand, we find clear motive
on the part of appellant/accused committing the
murder of his uncle”.
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 32 of 49
42. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram has specifically
deposed that he asked for money from the accused persons for
eating golgappas and the said boys (accused persons) started
hurling abuses at him and they threatened him. He also deposed
that they questioned him as to how he mustered courage to
demand money from them and they turned turtle his rehri. He
further deposed that he tried to stop them on which one of them
exhorted others by saying ‘pakro saale ko aaj ise maza chakhate
hai’. He further deposed that three boys caught hold of him and
the first boy who had exhorted others, took out a knife and
stabbed the knife in his abdomen at two or three places. PW-3
Sh. Tasleem Alam who was selling eggs at his rehri just adjacent
to rehri of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram also deposed
that after serving golgappas to those boys, Jagram demanded
money for golgappas from those boys on which all the four boys
became annoyed and threatened Jagram and turned turtle rehri of
Jagram. He further deposed that three boys caught hold Jagram
and fourth one took out a knife from the pocket of his trousers
and gave 2-3 knife blows in the abdomen of Jagram. Thus, from
the testimonies of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and
PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam, it has come on record that the accused
persons did not want to make payment for the golgappas eaten by
them and on asking for money by PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram, they got annoyed and on exhortion of one of the accused,
all the accused persons agreed to give beatings and stabbing
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram with a knife. Applying the
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 33 of 49
law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgments
in ‘Sheo Shankar Singh (supra)’, ‘Raghubir Singh (supra)’ &
‘Chunni Lal (supra)’, this court is of considered opinion that
accused persons had sufficient motive to commit the offence and
the prosecution has successfully established the motive for the
commission of offence by the accused persons in the present
case.
43. Ld. Defence Counsels have argued that the knife has been
planted upon accused Arman @ Waris (since PO).
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram has specifically deposed
that three boys caught hold of him and the first boy who has
exhorted others, took out a knife and stabbed the knife in his
abdomen. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam also deposed that three boys
caught hold of Jagram and the fourth one took out a knife from
pocket of his trouser and gave 2-3 knife blows in the abdomen of
Jagram. PW-5 ASI Yashvir, who reached at the spot of incident
when accused persons were giving beatings to
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram, deposed that he had
recovered knife from accused Arman @ Waris and he handed
over the custody of both accused persons and knife to SI Sanjay
Rana. He also deposed that IO prepared sketch of knife, Ex.
PW-3/B and seized the same. PW-13/IO SI Sanjay Rana
corroborated the version of PW-5 ASI Yashvir by deposing that
he went to the spot where ASI Yashvir had already apprehended
two persons. He also deposed that he prepared the sketch of knife
found in possession of Waris, Ex. PW-3/B and seized the same
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 34 of 49
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/C. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam also
deposed that IO prepared the sketch of knife recovered from the
assailants, Ex. PW-3/B. He also deposed that knife was seized
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/C. Thus, the knife was seized in the
presence of independent eyewitness i.e. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam
and its bears his signature at point ‘A’. PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam
also identified the knife, Ex. P-2 in the court at the time of
recording of his testimony. There is complete consistency in the
testimonies of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram, PW-3 Sh.
Tasleem Alam, PW-5 ASI Yashvir & PW-13/IO SI Sanjay Rana
with respect to the use of knife by accused Arman @ Waris and
its recovery from his possession. Thus, the prosecution has
successfully proved the recovery of knife, Ex. P-2 from
possession of accused Arman @ Waris and its use by him in
stabbing PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram.
44. Since three accused persons caught hold of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and one accused namely
Arman @ Waris (since PO) stabbed PW-2/complainant/injured
Sh. Jagram, they had shared common intention to commit the
offence under Sec. 307/34 IPC.
45. Ld. Defence Counsels have argued that accused persons
had no intention to kill PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram nor
any knowledge can be attributed to them that such injury could
have caused death of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram and
hence case does not fall within the purview of Sec. 307 IPC.
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram has specifically deposed
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 35 of 49
that accused Arman @ Waris stabbed him in his abdomen with a
knife which has been corroborated by PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam.
PW-1 Dr. Valvi Kuldeep Tapsing has proved the MLC of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram, Ex. PW-1/A. As per MLC
of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram, Ex. PW-1/A, he was
admitted to the hospital with the alleged history of assault by
sharp object by four unknown persons. PW-1 Dr. Valvi Kuldeep
Tapsing specifically deposed that he examined patient in
Casualty vide MLC No. 506/2018 and thereafter the patient was
referred to Surgery & Medicine Department for further treatment
and management. As per the MLC of PW-2/complainant/injured
Sh. Jagram, Ex. PW-1/A, there was open stab wound over left
upper frank outer aspect spindle shape obliquely placed. The
doctor has also mentioned in the MLC that the depth of the injury
cannot be assessed and he has mentioned two injuries of different
sizes. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused
persons despite opportunity given to them. PW-15 Dr. Atul
Singh, has proved the discharge summary of Jagram, Ex.
PW-14/B. He deposed that as per record, patient was admitted on
01.03.2018 in hospital with history of bleeding from left chest
region following penetrating injury. He further deposed that as
per record, on local examination, two wounds of size 1.5 cm x 1
cm and 03 cm x .5 cm over left chest region. He further deposed
that as per record, nature of injury was opined as dangerous by
SR (General Surgery) at point X on discharge summary. Thus,
prosecution has proved that the said injuries were stab injuries
and were caused by a sharp edged weapon and same were
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 36 of 49
dangerous to the life of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram.
The case of accused persons does not fall under general
exceptions from Sec. 76 to 106 IPC. Since the injury caused on
the person of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram had
endangered his life, the case squarely falls within the purview of
Sec. 307 IPC and intention as well as knowledge to commit
murder of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram can be
attributed to accused persons as they voluntarily caused the said
injuries on the person of PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram
by using knife, while acting in furtherance of common intention
under Sec. 34 IPC.
46. Ld. Defence Counsels have argued that the opinion
regarding the nature of injuries on the MLC of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram was given by Dr. H. K.
Khowal but he has not been examined as PW and the said
opinion has been proved by PW-15 Dr. Atul Singh and hence the
same cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons. Ld.
Addl. PP for the State has argued that PW-15 Dr. Atul Singh was
also a Senior Resident of General Surgery and he was also an
expert for examining the said injuries, his testimony will be read
in evidence as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Laddan
Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) cited as 2014 (1) JCC 404
observed : –
“MLC is an authentic record of injuries which is
prepared in regular course of business by the doctorFIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 37 of 49
and can be relied upon by the courts, even when the
doctor who prepared the MLC is not examined in the
court and the record is proved by any of the doctor.
Any person who alleges why the record of injuries
maintained by the hospital was not authentic and was
tempered with has to prove, how tempering was done.
It cannot be expected from the hospital to keep track
of doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither is the
doctor expected to keep the hospital informed about
his whereabouts. Merely because the doctor who
prepared the MLC is not personally examined, the
MLC cannot be disbelieved. Proving of MLC by the
colleague doctor who identifies the writing and
signature of the doctor who examined the patient or
by an administrative staff of the hospital who
identifies the signature of the doctor is sufficient and
good proof and MLC cannot be doubted unless the
tempering in MLC be proved by the person alleging
the tempering.”
Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in ‘Laddan (supra)’, this court is of considered opinion that
since PW-15 Dr. Atul Singh was Senior Resident of General
Surgery and Dr. H. K. Khowal who gave the opinion was also
Senior Resident, General Surgery, PW-15 Dr. Atul Singh was a
competent witness to prove the opinion regarding the nature of
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 38 of 49
injuries on MLC of PW-2/complainant Sh. Jagram and hence his
testimony is being read against the accused persons.
47. PW-13 IO/SI Sanjay Rana deposed that he seized the
weapon of offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-2, vide seizure memo, Ex.
PW-3/C. PW-10 HC Jitender has proved the record of register no.
19 & 21 maintained by him, Ex. PW-10/A to Ex. PW-10/D. He
deposed that on 28.02.2018, he was working as MHC(M) at PS
Kotwali and on that day, SI Sanjay Rana deposited one sealed
parcel which was seized with the seal of ‘SR’ along with another
sealed parcel which was seized with the seal of hospital and
sample seal and he deposited the said case properties in
Malkhana and made an entry at serial no. 5449 in register no. 19.
He also proved entry of deposit of blood sample and sample seal
by SI Sanjay Rana on 16.04.2018. He also deposed that on
23.04.2018, he sent the sealed parcels along with respective
sample seals to FSL Rohini through Ct. Uday vide RC No. 68/21,
exhibited as Ex. PW-10/C. PW-12 HC Uday deposed that on
direction of IO, he obtained sealed parcels along with two sample
seals from MHC(M) vide RC No. 68/21/18, Ex. PW-10/C and
deposited the same in FSL. He also proved acknowledgment
received from FSL exhibited as Ex. PW-10/D. He specifically
deposed that no tempering was done with sealed parcels and
sample seal till they remained in his possession. PW-11 Dr.
Poonam Sharma deposed that on 23.04.2018, sealed parcels
along with sample seals were received at FSL Rohini and same
were marked to her. Thus, the prosecution has proved the safe
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 39 of 49
custody of exhibits/case properties from the point of seizure till
the opening of the same by the Scientific Officer at FSL Rohini.
Accused persons have failed to show that any tempering was
done with the case properties before it was examined at FSL
Rohini.
48. PW-11 Ms. Poonam Sharma has proved the FSL Report,
Ex. PW-11/A. She also deposed that the DNA profiling (STR
analysis) performed on the exhibits provided; was sufficient to
conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source of
exhibit no. 1 (weapon of offence) and exhibit no. 2 (shirt of
injured person) was similar to the DNA profile from the source of
exhibit no. 3 (blood sample on gauze piece). Thus, as per the
DNA Report, Ex. PW-11/A, the DNA of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram was found on the knife
used by accused persons in the commission of offence. Accused
persons have failed to create any doubt with respect to the
testimony of PW-11 Ms. Poonam Sharma.
49. PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram is the injured in the
present case. He has specifically deposed against the accused
persons with respect to the injuries caused on his person. PW-3
Sh. Tasleem Alam has also corroborated version of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram with respect to the injuries
caused by accused persons to PW-2/complainant/injured Sh.
Jagram. There is complete consistency in his statement, Ex.
PW-2/A given to the police and his testimony recorded in the
Court. The testimony of the injured witness is to be appreciated
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 40 of 49
as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in this regard.
50. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab cited as (2009) 9 SCC
719 while dealing with the evidentiary value of injured witness
has observed as under:-
“28. Darshan Singh (PW-4) was an injured
witness. He had been examined by the
Doctor. His testimony could not be brushed
aside lightly. He had given full details of the
incident as he was present at the time when
the assailants reached the tubewell. In
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa Vs. State of
Karnataka, this Court has held that the
deposition of injured witness should be relied
upon unless there are strong grounds for
rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies, for
the reason that his presence on the scene
stands established in case it is proved that he
suffered the injury during the said incident.
51. In ‘State of U.P Vs. Kishan Chand‘, a similar view has
been reiterated observing that the testimony of stamped witness
has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness
sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lendsFIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 41 of 49
supports to its testimony that he was present during the
occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy
cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his
testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan Vs. State of
Haryana).”
52. Nothing has been brought on record by the accused
persons to put any dent on the version of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram as well as eyewitness
PW-3 Sh. Tasleem Alam. The nature of injury on the person
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram has been opined to be
‘dangerous’ in nature by the doctor. In these circumstances, it
cannot be said that PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram had
named the wrong persons other than the persons who caused said
dangerous injury on his person in furtherance of their common
intention. Applying the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Cour
of India in Jarnail Singh & Ors. (Supra) & Kishan Chand
(Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that the testimony of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram cannot be discarded
without any ground and hence the testimony of
PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram being injured is reliable.
53. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused
under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence
brought on record against him by the prosecution and to accord
him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing
against him.
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 42 of 49
54. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766 has held
that:-
it was the duty of the accused to explain
incriminating circumstances proved against
him while making statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
Keeping silent and not furnishing any
explanation for such circumstance was an
additional link in chain of circumstances to
sustain charges against you.
55. Similary Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment
titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014
SC 1256 has held that:-
if the accused remains silent or in complete
denial, the Court can take adverse intense
against you.
56. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6
SCC 1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference
against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s
313 Cr.P.C observed as under:-
“130. This Court has time and again held that where
an accused furnishes false answers as regards
proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse
inference qua him and such an inference shallFIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 43 of 49
become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt
of the accused in the present case, the appellant
Manu Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in
reply to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64,
65,67,72,75 and 201 put to him under Section 313 of
the Code.”
57. In the present case, the statements of accused persons
under Sec. 313 Cr.PC were recorded and in reply to the most of
the questions put to them they have stated either ‘it is incorrect’ or
or ‘I am not aware’ or ‘I do not know’. In answers, they have also
stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused persons have not taken any specific defence either in the
cross examination of prosecution witnesses or in their statements
recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by the
accused persons are evasive in nature and they have not
explained as to why, the prosecution witnesses have deposed
against them or as to why PW-2/complainant/injured Sh. Jagram
has named them. In these circumstances, applying the law laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Neel Kumar
(supra), Phula Singh (Supra and Sidharth Vashisth (supra)’
this court is of considred opinion that accused persons have not
furnished any explanation for these circumstance hence these
circumstances are additional link in the chain of circumstances
evidence against them.
58. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 44 of 49
the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in
arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that
the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In
a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of
prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To
secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution
witness must be of sterling quality.
59. In case titled as ‘Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21′, it is held that :
“22. In our considered opinion, the
“sterling witness” should be of a very high
quality and caliber whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The court
considering the version of such witness
should be in a position to accept it for its face
value without any hesitation. To test the
quality of such a witness, the status of the
witness would be immaterial and what would
be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
made by such a witness. What would be more
relevant would be the consistency of the
statement right from the starting point till the
end, namely, at the time when the witness
makes the initial statement and ultimatelyFIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 45 of 49
before the court. It should be natural and
consistent with the case of the prosecution
qua the accused. There should not be any
prevarication in the version of such a witness.
The witness should be in a position to
withstand the cross-examination of any length
and howsoever strenuous it may be and under
no circumstances should given room for any
doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as the sequence of
it. Such a version should have corelation with
each and every one of other supporting
material such as the recoveries made, the
weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of very
other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case
of circumstantial evidence where there should
not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of
the offence alleged against him. Only, if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above
test as well as all other such similar tests toFIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 46 of 49
be applied, can it be held that such a witness
can be called as a “sterling witness’ whose
version can be accepted by the court without
any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise,
the version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
the other supporting materials for holding the
offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
60. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
“23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a
case of rape can be based solely on the testimony
of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case
where the court is convinced about the truthfulness
of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances
with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It
the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality
that may be sufficient to sustain an order of
conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. InFIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 47 of 49
the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be
of such quality.”
61. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the
version of the witness should be natural one and it must
corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with
the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such
a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
62. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the
considered opinion that injured PW-2/complainant Sh. Jagram,
PW-3/eyewitness Sh. Tasleem Alam, PW-5 ASI Yashvir Singh &
PW-7 HC Sunder Pal are witnesses of sterling quality as their
versions are natural and they have also withstood the test of cross
examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the
testimonies of PW-2/complainant Sh. Jagram, PW-3/eyewitness
Sh. Tasleem Alam, PW-5 ASI Yashvir Singh & PW-7 HC Sunder
Pal are clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and
have been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses,
medical evidence and scientific evidence on record and the
circumstances. The Police witnesses i.e. PW-4 ASI Gyan
Prakash, PW-5 ASI Yashvir Singh, PW-6 HC Anil, PW-7 HC
Sunder Pal, PW-8 Ct. Surender, PW-9 HC Rajender Soni, PW-10
HC Jitender, PW-12 HC Uday Singh, PW-13 IO/SI Sanjay Rana
& PW-14 Inspector Deepak Kumar have proved the proceedings
conducted by the IO during the investigation of present case and
accused persons have failed to put any dent on the investigation
FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali,
State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 48 of 49
conducted by the IO in the present case. Prosecution has
successfully proved the ingredients of offence punishable under
Sec. 307/34 IPC against accused persons namely Javed & Anuj
@ Haryana beyond reasonable doubts.
63. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely
Javed & Anuj Haryana are hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under section 307/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date: on 7th day of February, 2026 2026.02.07 15:22:40 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:07.02.2026 FIR No. 65/2018, PS: Kotwali, State Vs. Arman @ Waris & Ors Page No. 49 of 49