Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal on 11 April, 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. 841/2019)
FIR No. 106/2019
Police Station Rajinder Nagar
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 302/307 IPC.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 302/307 IPC.
State Versus Kamal
S/o Sh. Bharat Bahadur,
R/o H. No. 127-128, 1st Floor,
Muhammadpur, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi.
...Accused.
Date of Institution of case 21.10.2019
Date of Arguments 02.04.2026 & previous dates
Judgment reserved on 02.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on 11.04.2026
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Kamal is facing trial for the offences punishable
under Sec. 302/307 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on
17.06.2019 at about 11:45 PM, in front of Feast House
Restaurant, 1B, Pusa Road, near Karol Bagh Metro Station, Delhi
accused Kamal committed murder of Rahul by causing multiple
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 1 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
stab injuries over his thoracic region and other parts of body i.e.
right side of chest region, left side of chest region etc. Further on
the aforesaid, date, time and place, accused Kamal also caused
stab injuries on the vital parts of the person of Pawan with such
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that if,
death of Pawan would have been caused, he would have been
guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the
case are that on 18.06.2019, at about 00:26 hours, on receiving
DD No. 2A, Ex. A-3, regarding stabbing of a person under Karol
Bagh Metro Station, PW-16 SI Ritu Raj along with PW-21 Ct.
Hari Mohan went to the spot of incident where they found blood
scattered in front of main gate of The Feast Restaurant and on
inquiry, it was revealed that one injured was shifted to Jeevan
Hospital and another injured was shifted to Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital. Thereafter, PW-16 SI Ritu Raj left PW-21 Ct. Hari
Mohan at the spot and went to Jeevan Hospital and collected
MLC No. 539/19, Ex. PW-17/A of deceased Rahul who could not
survive and succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter PW-16 SI Ritu
Raj went to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where another injured
namely Pawan was found under treatment vide MLC No. 530/19,
Ex. PW-23/A and concerned doctor also handed over blood
stained clothes of injured Pawan to PW-16 SI Ritu Raj which was
seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-32/A. Thereafter,
PW-16 SI Ritu Raj returned to the spot of incident where he
called the Mobile Crime Team and got inspected the spot of
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 2 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
incident through Mobile Crime Team. Thereafter, PW-16 SI Ritu
Raj collected the exhibits i.e. blood and earth control, from the
spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/A.
Thereafter, IO recorded statement of one of the co-worker of
deceased namely Honey Khurana, Ex. PW-3/A who narrated
about incident in which deceased Rahul and his friend Pawan
received stab injuries. Thereafter, PW-16 SI Ritu Raj prepared
rukka, Ex. PW-16/B on the basis of statement of
complainant/PW-3 Sh. Honey Khurana and got the present FIR
registered at PS Rajinder Nagar through PW-21 Ct. Hari Mohan.
After registration of FIR, further investigation of this case was
entrusted to PW-34 Inspector Rajesh Kumar.
3. Thereafter, IO/PW-34 Inspector Rajesh Kumar along with
SHO and Ct. Sharaft went to the spot of incident i.e. Gate No. 8,
Karol Bagh Metro Station where they met SI Ritu Raj and
complainant Sh. Honey Khurana and came to know about the
incident that deceased Rahul was working in the Feast House
Restaurant and where a dispute occurred between deceased and
accused Kamal. Thereafter, PW-16 SI Ritu Raj handed over
seizure memos and respective seized articles to PW-34/IO
Inspector Rajesh Kumar. During investigation, IO prepared site
plan, Ex. PW-3/B at the instance of SI Ritu Raj and complainant
Sh. Honey Khurana and tried to trace the accused but he could
not be found. During investigation, IO along with SI Ritu Raj and
other police staff started search of accused and they reached at
house of the accused situated at 127-128, Mohammadpur, R. K.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 3 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Puram, New Delhi where accused Kamal was found and he was
interrogated and during interrogation, he confessed his
involvement in the present case. Thereafter, IO arrested accused
Kamal, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure
statement. During investigation, accused got recovered his
clothes and shoes which were worn by him at the time of
commission of offence and he also got recovered weapon of
offence i.e. knife from the diggy of his scooty bearing
registration no. DL-3SDG-3284, which were seized by the IO
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/B & Ex. PW-16/D. During
investigation, IO also prepared sketch of recovered knife, Ex.
PW-16/E, seized the scooty vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/K,
prepared site plan of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife,
Ex. PW-16/H and prepared pointing out memo of spot by
accused, Ex. PW-16/L. Thereafter IO alongwith accused and
other police staff went to the RML Hospital and got conducted
postmortem on the body of deceased, seized the exhibits i.e.
clothes of deceased, blood sample of deceased and nail clippings
of deceased. IO also recorded dead body identification statements
of witnesses and after postmortem, he handed over the dead body
of deceased Rahul to his relative. IO also got conducted the
medical examination of accused and collected blood sample and
nail clippings of accused which were seized by him vide seizure
memo Ex. PW-16/K. During investigation, IO collected Mobile
Crime Team Report along with photographs, seized hard disc of
the CCTV cameras covering the place of incident from the office
of CA situated at 2nd Floor, seized hard disc of CCTV camera
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 4 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
from the office of Sh. Jaber Singh and seized footage of incident
in a pen-drive from office of Honey Khurana. IO also recorded
statement of friends of deceased namely Ishant, Manish, Sandeep
and some other persons, collected the details of the employees of
The Feast House Restaurant as well as employment document i.e.
wage register for the month of May, 2019 and employment
certificate of accused Kamal. During investigation, IO also
collected PCR form, got recorded statement under Sec. 164
Cr.PC of injured Pawan before Ld. MM, collected postmortem
report of deceased Rahul and MLC of injured Pawan. During
investigation, IO obtained CDR & CAF of relevant mobile
phone numbers and sent the DVRs and pen drive containing
CCTV footage to FSL Rohini. IO also sent the exhibits to FSL
Rohini for expert opinion, obtained subsequent opinion regarding
weapon of offence and got prepared scaled site plan. Thereafter,
on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO
before the Court through the SHO. After obtaining FSL result,
supplementary charge-sheet was also filed before the court.
4. Vide order dated 1 6 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 9 copy of the charge-sheet
was supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C was and
v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 1 6 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 9 the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Vide order dated 03.12.2019, the Ld. Predecessor Court
was pleased to frame charges under Sec 302/307 IPC against
accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 5 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 34 witnesses.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature
has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 Sh. Pawan, was the injured/eyewitness in the present
case. He deposed that Sandeep and Manish were friends and
deceased Rahul was a friend of Manish. He further deposed that
he did not know accused of this case. He further deposed that on
17.06.2021 at about 10:00 pm, he was sitting at the house of
Sandeep at Sitaram Colony and at about 11:00 pm, Manish came
there. He further deposed that they decided to take dinner at
restaurant and they took their friend Ishan from his house
situated at Karol Bagh and they reached at The Feast House
restaurant at Karol Bagh. He further deposed that while they
were standing outside the restaurant, a friend of Manish namely
Rahul came there and they started talking with each other. He
further deposed that in the meantime, one boy came there on a
scooty whose name he later on came to know as Kamal. He
further deposed that Rahul and Kamal started talking with each
other and some hot words were exchanged between them and
they started quarrelling with each other. He further deposed that
he intervened into the matter and separated them and thereafter
he left from there and at some distance from there he started
talking with Sandeep who was with them. He further deposed
that again Kamal and Rahul started quarrelling and fighting with
each other and scuffled with each other. He further deposed that
immediately, they reached there and again intervened into the
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 6 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
matter and when he was trying to separate them and in the
meantime, Kamal stabbed knife on his back and thereafter he fled
away from there. He again said that he felt unconscious. He
further deposed that he started running and Manish took him to
the hospital and he remained admitted for 2-3 days in Ganga
Ram Hospital. He further deposed that police officer met him at
his residence and recorded his statement after about one week.
He further deposed that he could not see the face of Kamal as
there was some darkness at the spot at the time of incident and he
could not identify the accused. This witness was cross-examined
by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but he did not support the case of
the prosecution. He admitted that incident of this case had
happened at about 11:30 pm, on 17.06.2019. He admitted that
accused Kamal met them at the spot i.e. outside the Feast House
Restaurant, he was under influence of liquor. He denied the
suggestion that when he and Manish were trying to intervene into
the matter and to separate them, accused Kamal pushed Rahul
due which Rahul fell on the road and accused Kamal sat on him
on his stomach and took out knife from his bag and attacked
upon Rahul 4-5 times on his chest with knife with intent to kill
him or that in the meanwhile when he and his friends tried to
save Rahul from accused Kamal, he (Kamal) attacked on him
with knife with intent to kill him and stabbed the same on his
body near his chest or that he continued in attacking and
thereafter accused left from there. He also denied the suggestion
that accused Kamal who was present in the court was the same
person who stabbed Rahul in his presence, 4-5 times on his chest
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 7 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
with knife due to which he expired. He also denied the
suggestion that he had stated the Ld. MM true and correct fact of
the incident in his statement. Voluntarily, he deposed that he
stated the Ld. MM as per brief given by the police officials. He
also denied the suggestion that accused Kamal who was present
in the court was the same person who killed Rahul or that he had
seen him very well at the spot or that he was deposing falsely and
deliberately not identifying him to save him from the present
case as he had been won over by him. This witness was
confronted with his statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC as
well as Sec. 164 Cr.PC, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A & Ex. A7
respectively. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
8. PW-2 Sh. Ishant, was the friend of deceased Rahul. He
deposed that on 17.06.2019, at about 11:00 pm, he received a call
of his friend namely Manish and he asked as to where he was and
he lied him that he was at home whereas he was at Red Light,
Tilak Nagar. He further deposed that Manish again called him
and asked him to come out from home and he also told him to
meet him at Gulabi Bagh, 2 No. Chowki. He further deposed that
he reached there where Pawan, Sandeep and Manish met him. He
further deposed that Manish told him that Rahul, who was friend
of him as well as of Manish had some altercation (kahasuni) with
a person where he was working in a restaurant. He further
deposed that the name of that person was revealed as Kamal and
at about 11:40 pm, he along with Manish, Sandeep and Pawan
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 8 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
reached at restaurant, whose name he did not remember, situated
under the Metro Station Karol Bagh where Rahul was working.
He further deposed that in the meantime, Rahul came out of the
restaurant and on seeing him, Manish asked him as to why he
was so scared (gabraya kyun hai). He further deposed that Rahul
told that he had some altercation/quarrel with a person in a
restaurant and he was threatening him. He further deposed that in
the meantime, Kamal also came out of restaurant and on seeing
him, Manish tried to make him understand not to fight or quarrel.
He further deposed that Rahul went to Kamal and told ‘Ab bol,
kya bolna hain’ and some altercation had taken place in between
Rahul and Kamal. He further deposed that in the meantime,
Pawan slapped Kamal and told ‘tune Rahul ko akela samjh rakha
hain’ and in the meantime Manish caught Pawan and dragged
him back and made him understand not to fight with Kamal. He
further deposed that the altercation in between Kamal and Rahul
continued and thereafter Kamal laid Rahul on the ground and sat
on his chest and hit knife on his chest five to six times. He further
deposed that on seeing the same, he and Pawan tried to save
Rahul and in the meantime, Kamal also hit knife to Pawan below
the chest and above the abdomen on left side. He further deposed
that on seeing the same, they became scared and while leaving
the spot, he saw that Kamal was hitting legs on the face of Rahul.
He further deposed that he ran towards PS Rajinder Nagar and in
the meantime he saw some policemen there and they asked him
what was the matter and he disclosed them entire facts of the
incidents and they took him to PS and in the PS, he came to
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 9 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
know about the death of Rahul. He further deposed that he also
came to know that Manish and Pawan had been admitted in the
hospital. This witness correctly identified accused during his
deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that on the asking of Manish, he went to the place of occurrence.
He also deposed that Manish was the friend of deceased Rahul,
who was also known to him. He also deposed that Manish told
him that ‘Rahul ka phone aaya hai uski restaurant mein kisi se
kaha suni ho gayee hai aur veh ghabraya hua hai’. He also
deposed that Pawan, Manish and Sandeep met him at Chowki no.
2, Shakti Nagar and they were not carrying any weapon. He also
deposed that on the spot, Honey Khurana and 1-2 other persons
were present. He also deposed that the incident took place near
Rajinder Nagar Metro Station and there was dim light. He also
deposed that at the time of incident, he was at a distance of about
5-10 meters from the spot and he could not see the incident
properly. He denied the suggestion that accused Kamal did not
give knife blows to deceased. He denied the suggestion that at
the instance of deceased Rahul, he along with Pawan, Manish &
Sandeep reached at the spot to beat the accused Kamal. He also
denied the suggestion that the weapon of offence i.e. knife was
carried by one of them including Rahul.
9. PW-3 Sh. Honey Khurana was the complainant in the
present case. He deposed that on 17.06.2019 at about 11:30/11:40
pm, he was present outside his restaurant ‘The Feast House’
situated at Karol Bagh, Near Metro Station Gate No. 8 and was
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 10 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
smoking with his colleague Vikas and in the meantime, Kamal
came out from the restaurant on the scooty who was stopped by
Rahul and his friends who were already standing outside the
restaurant. He further deposed that the friend of Rahul namely
Pawan slapped Kamal and thereafter a scuffle had been taken
place between Rahul and Kamal. He further deposed that he and
Vikas tried to intervene in the matter to stop them not to fight but
both of them again started fighting with each other. He further
deposed that in the meantime, accused Kamal took out knife
from his back side and stabbed three times on the chest of Rahul.
He further deposed that accused Kamal also stabbed Pawan and
thereafter Kamal ran away from there on scooty on wrong side
towards Jhandewalan. He further deposed that thereafter, he and
his friend Vikas took Rahul to Jeevan Hospital on rickshaw and
got him admitted there. He further deposed that Pawan was also
taken to the hospital by his friends. He also deposed that on the
same day, he had also called the police at 100 number and on the
same night of the incident at about 01:00 am. He further deposed
that IO of this case met him and made inquiry from him and
recorded his statement, Ex. PW-3/A. He also deposed that prior
to the incident, some hot words were also exchanged between
Rahul and Kamal in the restaurant but they pacified them and
sent Rahul to his house but Rahul called his friends. He also
deposed that on the same night of incident, IO had also inspected
the spot at his instance and prepared site plan, Ex. PW-3/B. He
also deposed that after 2-3 days of the incident, IO came at his
restaurant and he provided him the pen-drive containing CCTV
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 11 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
footage of recording inside the restaurant, which was seized by
IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/C. He further deposed that the
IO had also seized the DVR of the cameras after 2-3 days of the
incident vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/D. He deposed that he also
issued certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, Ex.
PW-3/E. This witness correctly identified accused during his
deposition before the court as well as in the CCTV footage
played in the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that
about 18-19 employees were working at the said Restaurant
including accused Kamal and other persons namely Manoj, Vijay,
Pritivash, Vikas & Ashok. He also deposed that accused Kamal
was working in the said Restaurant prior to him. He admitted that
face of Kamal was not visible among the persons fighting at spot
in CCTV footage. He also admitted that his face/his presence was
also not clear in footage. He deposed that he had advised Kamal
to stay in Restaurant on that night as an altercation had taken
place between him and Rahul about 15 minutes back and he
came to know that Rahul had called some of his friends. He also
deposed that at the time of incident, Kamal was alone and Rahul
was with his friends. He deposed that he had been working with
Kamal for last about 8-9 months since prior to incident and hence
he had correctly identified him in the footage. He denied the
suggestion that incident of fighting was not being seen in the
footage. He also denied the suggestion that no such incident took
place or that Kamal was not involved in the incident or that he
had not caused injury to Rahul and Pawan. He also denied the
suggestion that no fighting took place between Rahul and Kamal
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 12 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
inside the restaurant or that scuffling took place between him and
Kamal inside the restaurant or that he had previous
enmity/quarrel with Kamal or that hence he was deposing falsely
against Kamal.
10. PW-4 Sh. Manish, was the friend of deceased Rahul. He
deposed that deceased Rahul was his friend and he was residing
at the distance of 4-5 km from his house at Bara Tooti Chowk,
Sadar Bazar. He further deposed that deceased Rahul was
working in The Feast House Restaurant as a waitor. He further
deposed that on 17.06.2019 at about 11:00 pm, he received his
call and he told that ‘Manish mere pas paise nahi hain aur mujhe
lene aa jao’. He further deposed that deceased Rahul also told
him that a quarrel had taken place between him and Kamal and at
that time he was perplexed (ghabrya hua tha). He further deposed
that thereafter he went to the house of his friends Sandeep and
Pawan and he disclosed them about the said fact of receiving call
of Rahul. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with Pawan
and Sandeep left to meet Rahul and on the way, he made call to
his friend Ishant, who met them at Gulabi Bagh. He further
deposed that thereafter, they reached outside The Feast House
Restaurant under Karol Bagh Metro Station. He further deposed
that Rahul met them outside the restaurant and they asked him
about the matter and asked why he was so scared. He further
deposed that in the meantime, one boy came out from the
restaurant whose name he later on came to know as Kamal
having wheatish colour and some light beared. He further
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 13 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
deposed that he told Rahul to call Kamal and they would discuss
the matter. He further deposed that in the meantime, Rahul asked
Kamal to come out from the Restaurant and told that ‘tune
mereko mara kyon tha, ab maar ke dikha, mere bhai aa gaye
hain’. He further deposed that on this Kamal replied ‘bhai ke
samne kyon chora ho raha hai, akele mein miliyo kabhi’. He
further deposed that in the meantime, Pawan pushed Kamal and
slapped him and told him ‘ise akela mat samjiyo’ and on this he
took Kamal at a side and told him why he slapped Kamal. He
further deposed that in the meantime, he saw that Kamal and
Rahul started quarreling and scuffling with each other. He further
deposed that in the meantime, accused Kamal took out knife and
gave 4-5 times knife blows to Rahul on his chest. He further
deposed that he also laid down Rahul on the ground and sat on
his stomach and gave knife blows on his chest. He further
deposed that when his friend Ishan and Pawan tried to save
Rahul, accused Kamal gave knife blow to Pawan on the back
side of chest and on receiving injuries, Pawan went aside limping
(langrate-langrate). He further deposed that on seeing the above,
his friend Sandeep ran away from there and he also became
scared and hidden himself near the spot. He further deposed that
he saw that accused Kamal was still giving leg blows to Rahul
and thereafter accused Kamal went away from there on scooty.
He further deposed that he tried to lift Rahul by calling ‘Rahul-
Rahul’ but he did not respond and found dead. He further
deposed that he heard sound of Pawan and took him to Ganga
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 14 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Ram Hospital in injured condition and got him admitted there.
He also deposed that police officials met him in the hospital and
his statement was recorded in the Police Station. This witness
correctly identified accused as well as case property during his
deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that he alongwith his friends namely Sandeep, Ishant & Pawan
reached on the spot at about 11:40 pm. He denied the suggestion
that with the intention to beat Kamal, he along with his friends
reached on the spot at the instance of Rahul. He also deposed that
he did not know as to at what time, the police officials reached at
the spot. Voluntarily, he deposed that he had taken his friend
Pawan to hospital prior to arrival of police on the spot. He also
deposed that the staff of Restaurant was there including Honey
Khurana. Voluntarily, he deposed that no public person was
present on the spot except Honey Khurana. He denied the
suggestion that he and his friends including Rahul were beating
Kamal and due to this reason they did not call any public person.
He also denied the suggestion that at the instance of deceased
Rahul, he along with Pawan, Ishant and Sandeep reached on the
spot to beat accused Kamal. He also denied the suggestion that
weapon of offence i.e. knife was carried by one of them
including Rahul.
11. PW-5 Sh. Vinay, was the elder brother of deceased Rahul.
He deposed that on 17.06.2019, he received a call from one
person whose name he did not know and informed that someone
stabbed knife to his younger brother Rahul and he was shifted to
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 15 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Jeevan Hospital. He further deposed that when he reached there,
he came to know that he had expired. He proved dead body
identification memo and dead body vide handing over memo of
deceased Rahul exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A & Ex. PW-5/B. This
witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in
which he admitted that his deceased brother used to work at the
Feast House Restaurant at Pusa Road, near Karol Bagh Metro
Station. He admitted that he had stated to the IO that he was
informed by his deceased brother’s friends namely Sandeep and
Manish that accused Kamal, S/o Bharat Bahadur stabbed with
knife to his brother after quarrel. He also admitted that he had
stated to IO that they informed him that accused Kamal was also
working in the said company with his brother. In his cross-
examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that IO recorded
his statement at Mortuary. He also deposed that he met Sandeep
and Manish in the PS on 18.06.2019 in the morning hours.
12. PW-6 Sh. Vikas, deposed that he did not remember the
date and month of the incident but it was in the year 2019. He
further deposed that he, Honey Khurana, accused Kamal and
deceased Rahul were working in the same Restaurant. He further
deposed that on the day of the incident, at about 11:00/11:30 pm,
when he was going back to his house after his duty, he met Mr.
Honey Khurana outside the Restaurant and they started talking
with each other and were consuming cigarette. He further
deposed that after sometime, accused Kamal came out of the
restaurant and started talking with his friends, who were also
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 16 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
standing outside the restaurant. He further deposed that when
accused Kamal was leaving the Restaurant on his scooty, Rahul
stopped his scooty and a scuffle took place between them due to
some dispute that took place inside the Restaurant. He further
deposed that one of the friend of Rahul also joined the scuffle
and he slapped accused Kamal but he did not remember the name
of his friend who had slapped the accused. He further deposed
that he and Honey Khurana tried to pacify them, however, they
did not pay any heeds to their request, since the accused Kamal
was under the influence of liquor. He further deposed that
accused Kamal took out a knife from inside his clothes on his
waist and attacked Rahul with the knife. He further deposed that
Rahul sustained stab injuries on his body and he fell on the
ground and thereafter Kamal fled away from the spot. He further
deposed that thereafter Mr. Honey made a call to police at 100
number. He also deposed that they took injured Rahul to a
hospital in a rickshaw and later on, he came to know from the
police officers that one of the friend of deceased Rahul had also
sustained injuries. He further deposed that in the hospital, doctor
declared Rahul as brought dead. This witness was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he admitted that
the date of incident was 17.06.2019. He also admitted that he had
stated to the IO that 3-4 friends of Rahul were standing outside
the gate of the Restaurant. He denied the suggestion that he had
stated to the IO that accused Kamal stabbed 4 to 5 times with
knife on the chest of deceased Rahul. Voluntarily, he deposed that
accused had waved the knife in the air and in that process,
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 17 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
deceased Rahul might have received injuries. He denied the
suggestion that accused Kamal intentionally stabbed 4 to 5 times
with knife on the chest of deceased Rahul and he had not waved
the knife in the air. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to
IO that accused Kamal had caused injuries with knife to Pawan
when he tried to save his friend Rahul. He also denied the
suggestion that accused Kamal also inflicted stab injuries on the
face of the injured Rahul and gave leg and fist blows, even after
he fell on the ground. He admitted that before the incident Rahul
had a quarrel in the Restaurant and later on the same turned into
this incident. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he
deposed that he did not notice any weapons in the hands of the
friends of the deceased Rahul. He also deposed that he did not
know the names of the friends of Rahul, however, he came to
know the name of one of his friend as Pawan. He also deposed
that he knew accused Kamal and Honey Khurana for the last one
year from the incident. He denied the suggestion that one of the
friends of Rahul had stabbed knife to Rahul. He also denied the
suggestion that Honey Khurana and accused Kamal were
working on the same post and due to which they had personal
grudge against each other.
13. PW-7 Sh. Jabar Singh Yadav, deposed that IO seized the
DVR/Hard disc of CCTV cameras, Ex. PW-3/P-1 along with
adopter installed by one CA Sanjay Jain at building no. 1B, Pusa
Road, Metro Tower, Karol Bagh, Delhi vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-7/A and he identified the same. In his cross-examination, he
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 18 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
denied the suggestion that neither police met him nor seized any
DVR in his presence.
14. PW-8 Sh. Ashok, was the uncle of deceased Rahul. He
deposed that on 17.06.2019, he received call from the friend of
deceased namely Sandeep and Manish that one person namely
Kamal who was also working in the same Restaurant, had
quarreled and stabbed Rahul with knife. He further deposed that
he identified dead body of deceased Rahul vide memo Ex.
PW-8/A and obtained the dead body vide handing over memo Ex.
PW-5/B. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that
Sandeep and Manish did not inform him regarding the incident
that accused Kamal had stabbed Rahul. He also deposed that he
did not remember his mobile phone number on which Sandeep
and Manish informed him regarding the incident.
15. PW-8 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, was the friend/neighbour of
injured Pawan. He deposed that on 17.06.2019, he was present at
his house alongwith his friend Pawan and at about 11:00 pm
Manish came to his house and he joined their company. He
further deposed that Manish told them that his one friend namely
Rahul working at a Restaurant situated at Pusa Road. He further
deposed that Manish further told them that one person namely
Kamal who was also working in the said Restaurant had
threatened and beaten Rahul. He further deposed that Manish
requested them to go to the said Restaurant for dinner and
thereafter he along with Manish and Pawan left his house on a
bike and on the way, friend of Manish namely Ishant met them
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 19 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
and Manish sat on his scooty. He further deposed that thereafter
they all reached at B-1, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh Metro Station in
front of said Restaurant where Rahul was working. He further
deposed that meanwhile Rahul, friend of Manish came out from
the Restaurant and met them. He further deposed that at that
time, Rahul was in frightened condition and when Manish asked
him as to why he was frightened and in the meanwhile, one
person namely Kamal came out from the said Restaurant. He
further deposed that Rahul talked with Kamal and asked him ‘ki
ab batao mere bhai aa gaya hai. Tumne mujhe kyon mara. Ab
maar kar dikha’. He further deposed that while talking with
Kamal, Rahul came in front of the scooty of Kamal on which
Kamal replied that ‘Apne bhayion ke samne kyon chora ho raha
hai akele miliyo’. He further deposed that at that time, Kamal was
under the influence of alcohol. He also deposed that meanwhile,
Pawan slapped Kamal while saying that ‘ki tumne Rahul ko akele
samajh rakha hai kya’. He further deposed that at once, Manish
shouted upon Pawan and asked Pawan why he slapped Kamal
and he separated Pawan from Kamal. He further deposed that in
the meanwhile, accused Kamal started fighting with Rahul and
he pushed Rahul due to which he fell down on the road and
thereafter Kamal kicked on the face of Rahul and after that
Kamal sat on the body of Kamal and took out a knife from his
waist and started stabbing on the chest of Rahul and accused
Kamal stabbed 4-5 times on the chest of Rahul with intention to
kill him. He further deposed that when his friend Ishant and
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 20 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Pawan tried to get free Rahul from the clutches of accused
Kamal, then accused Kamal stabbed below the chest of Pawan
with intention to kill him. He further deposed that he got afraid
after seeing the incident and went away about 80-100 meters
from the spot. He further deposed that Manish took Pawan to the
hospital for treatment as blood was oozing from his body. He
further deposed that someone rang on 100 number and PCR
came on the spot and he did not know who took Rahul to the
hospital. He further deposed that on 18.06.2019, in the morning,
he was called to PS Rajinder Nagar where police made inquiries
from him regarding the said incident and recorded his statement.
He also deposed that he came to know that Rahul succumbed to
the injuries. This witness correctly identified accused Kamal in
the court during his deposition. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that he had no friendly relationship with the deceased
but Rahul was the friend of Manish and he had seen him roaming
around with Manish and other friends. He denied the suggestion
that he went at the place of incident with any ulterior motive and
not to take dinner. He admitted that basically they went there to
get the quarrel resolved between the accused and the deceased
Rahul and prior to reaching him to the Cafe, quarrel had already
taken place between accused and the deceased. He admitted that
when he along with Pawan, Ishant and Manish reached at the
spot, there was no quarrel happening. Voluntarily, he deposed
that later on, accused came to the spot and started quarreling and
stabbed the deceased. He also deposed that accused came
downstairs from the Cafe and he along with Pawan, Ishant and
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 21 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Manish were standing outside the Cafe. He admitted that Rahul
had gone to call accused Kamal to come outside the Cafe to get
the matter resolved. He denied the suggestion that Rahul had
asked the abovesaid persons to take the accused to the back side
of the parking/gali behind the Metro Station. He also denied the
suggestion that accused was not in possession of any knife at the
time of incident. Voluntarily, he deposed that accused was
carrying knife under his belt and the knife was not visible from
outside while he was carrying it under his belt. He also denied
the suggestion that he along with abovementioned four persons
came armed with knife to attack the accused. He also denied the
suggestion that the deceased died on account of stab injury
sustained by him during the scuffle between them and the
accused from the knife that was being carried by them.
16. PW-9 Sh. Manu Bhatia, was the owner of The Feast House
Restaurant. He deposed that in the year 2019, he was running a
Restaurant Feast House being head of the company situated at
B-1, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and at that time accused
Kamal was a regular employee of his company and he was
working at aforesaid restaurant as Captain. He further deposed
that Honey and Ashok were also regular employee and they were
working at aforesaid restaurant permanently. He also deposed
that deceased Rahul and Vikas were daily casual wager at his
aforesaid restaurant and they used to be called on requirement
basis for services in restaurant. He further deposed that in the
intervening night of 17/18.06.2019 at about 01:00 am when he
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 22 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
was present at his house, he was informed by Honey Khurana
that fight was going on between restaurant staff. He further
deposed that in the next morning when he came to his restaurant,
he came to know that in the said fight, his one staff namely
Kamal had committed murder of another staff/employee Rahul.
He also proved the salary slip of his employees working at his
Restaurant along with his reply to the IO, Ex. PW-9/A to Ex.
PW-9/D. He also proved his letter dated 16.08.2019 addressed to
IO, regarding employement details of accused Kamal as Ex.
PW-9/E. He also proved copy of Aadhar cards of his employees
namely Ashok Pawar, Vikas Kumar, Honey Khurana, Rahul
(since deceased) & accused Kamal as Mark-PW-9/F-1 to Mark-
PW-9/F5. This witness correctly identified accused Kamal during
his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that he was not present at the time of incident. He also
deposed that he did not know as to who all were involved in the
fight.
17. PW-10 Smt. Bimla, was mother of eyewitness Manish. She
deposed that Manish was her son and he had got issued mobile
SIM card no. 9971360246 in her name and he was using the
same. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that
SIM card of aforesaid mobile was being used by her as the same
was issued in her name.
18. PW-11 Dr. Parshuram Singh, Assistant Director (Physics),
FSL, Rohini proved his FSL report Ex. PW-11/A and opined that
cut marks Q1-Q-7 on the clothes could have been caused with
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 23 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
knife. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he
had not examined/compared the exhibits properly or that had
given report in mechanical manner.
19. PW-12 Sh. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Sr. Scientific Assistant
(Biology) proved his report and allalic data exhbited as Ex.
PW-12/A & Ex. PW-12/B. In his cross-examination he denied the
suggestion that he had examined the exhibits properly or that had
given report in mechanical manner.
20. PW-13 Dr. C. P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL
Rohini proved his report, Ex. PW-13/A. He also deposed that he
examined the exhibit and found no indication of altercation in the
continuous video footage of the CCTV recording. This witness
was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity
given to him.
21. PW-14 Sh. Kailash Kumar, Junior Forensic/Assistant
Chemical Examinor, Cyber Forensic Division, FSL, Rohini,
proved his report, Ex. PW-14/A. This witness was not cross-
examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
22. PW-15 SI Kuldeep Singh, was In-charge at Mobile Crime
Team. He deposed that on 18.06.2019 on receiving call at
midnight from Control Room, he along with HC Virender
(fingerprint proficient) and Ct. Virender (photographer) went to
the spot of incident i.e. Footpath under Karol Bagh Metro
Station, Pillar No. 106 and he inspected the spot and prepared his
detailed report exhibited as Ex. PW-15/A. In his cross-
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 24 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
examination, he deposed that he did not remember if any public
person was also present at the spot. He denied the suggestion that
he did not visit the spot with team or that no inspection was
carried by him.
23. PW-16 SI Ritu Raj was the first IO in the present case. He
deposed that on the date of incident, he received information
regarding the incident of stabbing knife at about 12 midnight, he
along with Ct. Hari Mohan went to the spot of incident i.e. under
the Karol Bagh Metro Station, Pusa Road, where they met with
Pawan, who narrated the incident to him. He further deposed that
he called the Mobile Crime Team and got inspected the spot of
incident through Mobile Crime Team and thereafter, he collected
the exhibits i.e. blood and earth control, from the spot and seized
the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/A. He further deposed
that he recorded statement of complainant Honey Khurana, Ex.
PW-3/A who narrated about incident in which deceased Rahul
and his friend Pawan received stab injuries from accused Kamal.
He further deposed that he prepared rukka, Ex. PW-16/B on the
basis of statement of complainant/PW-3 Sh. Honey Khurana and
got the present FIR registered at PS Rajinder Nagar through Ct.
Hari Mohan. He further deposed that after registration of FIR,
further investigation of this case was entrusted to PW-34
Inspector Rajesh Kumar and he handed over seizure memos and
respective seized articles to PW-34/IO Inspector Rajesh Kumar.
He further deposed that during investigation, IO prepared site
plan, Ex. PW-3/B at his instance and complainant Sh. Honey
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 25 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Khurana and tried to search accused but he could not be found.
He further deposed that he along with IO and other police staff
started search of accused and reached house of the accused
situated at 127-128, Mohammadpur, R. K. Puram, New Delhi
where accused Kamal was found and he was interrogated and
during interrogation, he confessed his involvement in the present
case. He further deposed that IO arrested accused Kamal, vide
arrest memo Ex. PW-16/F, conducted his personal search vide
memo Ex. PW-16/G and recorded his disclosure statement, Ex.
PW-16/J. He further deposed that accused got recovered his
clothes and shoes which were worn by him at the time of
commission of offence and he also got recovered weapon of
offence i.e. knife from the diggy of his scooty bearing
registration no. DL-3SDG-3284, which were seized by the IO
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/B & Ex. PW-16/D. He further
deposed that IO also got prepared sketch of recovered knife, Ex.
PW-16/E, seized the scooty vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/K,
prepared site plan of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife,
Ex. PW-16/H and prepared pointing out memo of spot by
accused, Ex. PW-16/L. He further deposed that he along with IO
as well as accused and other police staff went to the RML
Hospital and got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased,
seized the exhibits i.e. clothes of deceased, blood sample of
deceased, nail clippings of deceased. He further deposed that IO
also got conducted the medical examination of accused and
collected blood sample and nail clippings of accused which was
seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/K. On putting a
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 26 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this witness
admitted that he met injured Pawan and doctor handed over
sealed pullanda containing blood stained shirt of injured Pawan
which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-32/A. This
witness correctly identified accused as well as case property
during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination
on behalf of accused, he deposed that on receiving information
regarding knife stabbing of a person, he reached at the spot
within five minutes. He also deposed that the scooty was
recovered from the parking of the building used by resident of
building i.e. H. No. 127/128 and at the time of recovery, no
public persons were present in the parking. He denied the
suggestion that in absence of any description regarding location
of the knife in seizure memo Ex. PW-16/D, clearly suggested that
the knife was not recovered but was deliberately planted by him.
He also deposed that he had not recorded statement of Pawan
during course of his investigation in this case. He denied the
suggestion that no recovery was made at the instance of accused
and nothing was discovered on the disclosure of accused. He also
denied the suggestion that accused never made any disclosure
statement and alleged disclosure statement was false and
fabricated.
24. PW-17 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Khanna, deposed that on
18.06.2019 he was posted at Jeevan Nursing Home, Pusa Road,
Delhi. He further deposed that he examined patient namely Rahul
and gave medical treatment to Rahul as per SOP but he could not
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 27 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
survive and expired. He proved the MLC of deceased Rahul, Ex.
PW-17/A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
25. PW-18 Dr. Vinod Kumar KN, Assistant Professor, Forensic
Medicines, Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi proved
the postmortem report of deceased Rahul as Ex. PW-18/A. He
also deposed about cause of death as ‘haemorrhagic shock and its
complications consequent upon stab injury sustained over
thoracic region involving lungs and base of aorta’. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that injuries mentioned in the post-
mortem report could be inflicted by more than one person but not
at different times. He denied the suggestion that some injuries
were planted or created after death of deceased. He denied the
suggestion that he made postmortem report, Ex. PW-18/A at the
behest of IO to show more injuries than actually existed.
26. PW-19 Sh. Shashank Tyagi, Alternate Nodal Officer,
Vodafone Idea Ltd. proved the CDR, CAF & Cell ID Chart of
mobile phone numbers 9990459794, issued in name of Sh. Vikas
Kumar, 9718689304, issued in name of Sh. Honey Khurana,
9654659999, issued in name of accused Kamal & 9643703195,
issued in name of Ishant along with certificate under Sec. 63
BSA, exhibited as PW-19/A to Ex. PW-19/L. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that there were possibilities that the Cell
ID may change. Voluntarily, he deposed that if the cell tower
moves from its location then Cell ID will change accordingly. He
also deposed that in this case, he downloaded all the relevant
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 28 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
papers on his computer through server. He denied the suggestion
that the said documents had been falsely created by him at the
instance of IO.
27. PW-20 HC Kapil Kumar deposed that on 05.07.2019, he
collected the exhibits from MHC(M) vide Road Certificates No.
57/21/19 & 58/21/19, Ex. PW-20/B & Ex. PW-20/C and
deposited the same at FSL, Rohini from where he received
acknowledgment Ex. PW-20/A which was handed over by him to
the MHC(M). In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion
that articles received under RC No. 57/21/19 were obtained by
him on 04.07.2019. He denied the suggestion that in fact he
received two knives from FSL and deposited only one.
28. PW-21 Ct. Hari Mohan, deposed that on 17.06.2019 SI
Rituraj received a call regarding stabbing of a person and
thereafter he along with him went to the spot of incident. He also
deposed that Crime Team inspected the spot of incident. He also
deposed that SI Rituraj collected exhibits from the spot of
incident and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/A.
He further deposed that SI Rituraj prepared rukka at about 03:30
am and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR, on
which he got the FIR registered and handed over the copy of the
same to IO. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not
remember if eyewitness was present at the spot. He also deposed
that he did not know as to which hospital was visited by the IO at
first. He also deposed that he did not remember the distance
between place of incident and Jeevan Hospital. He denied the
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 29 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
suggestion that he had never visited the spot of incident or that he
deposed falsely.
29. PW-22 Sh. Rajiv Vashisth, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel
Ltd. proved the CDR & CAF of mobile phone numbers
9971360246, issued in the name of Smt. Vimla & 9821813884,
issued in the name of Vinay along with certificate under Sec. 63
BSA exhibited as Ex. PW-22/A to Ex. PW-22/G. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that he had not seen the original of
document, Ex. PW-22/A as the same was not available in the
office and only scanned copy was available. He also deposed that
in this case, he downloaded all the relevant papers on his
computer through server. He denied the suggestion that the said
documents had been falsely created by him at the instance of IO.
30. PW-23 Dr. Sandeep, deposed that on 17.06.2018 he was
posted at Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital as CMO and on that day a
patient/injured namely Pawan was brought to hospital by his
friend namely Manish with alleged history of stabbing. He
proved MLC of injured Sh. Pawan, exhibited as Ex. PW-23/A.
He further deposed that he had mentioned injury marks in his
report and handed over blood stained clothes of injured to IO. In
his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember the
exact time of handing over of blood stained clothes of injured to
the IO. He also deposed that injured was brought in the Casualty
at around 11:55 pm.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 30 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
31. PW-24 Sh. Prakash Saxena, Nodal Officer, Reliance JIO
Infocom proved the CAF, CDR & Cell ID Chart of mobile phone
numbers i.e. 9999008030, issued in the name of Manu Bhatia,
9354001890 issued in the name of Ishant, 8700076713, issued in
the name of Sandeep & 7982994989, issued in the name of
Ashok along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence
Act, exhibited as Ex. PW-24/A to Ex. PW-24/J. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that company’s computer system took
data from server which was located in Mumbai. He also deposed
that the server was not under his control. He also deposed that
server was password protected and he had not mentioned in his
certificate that if any password had been provided to him.
32. PW-25 Dr. Shivani Chandra, proved MLC of accused
Kamal, prepared by Dr. Pritam, exhibited as Ex. PW-25/A. In
her cross-examination she deposed that she did not have any
personal knowledge about this case.
33. PW-26 Dr. Arvind Kumar proved the opinion regarding
the nature of injury on person of Sh. Pawan, vide Medical
Record No. MRD/1/2019, exhibited as Ex. PW-26/A as
‘grievous’ in nature. In his cross-examination, he deposed that as
per record, Pawan was discharged on 19.06.2019 and at the time
of discharge, patient was fit for statement.
34. PW-27 HC Sardool Singh deposed that on 21.06.2019, he
along with IO/Inspector Rajesh Kumar Jha went to CA Office
where they met with one person namely Jaber Singh who handed
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 31 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
over DVR to IO which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-7/A. He also proved the seizure memo of another DVR Ex.
PW-3/D. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
35. PW-28 ASI Ravinder Tomar was MHC(M) at PS Rajinder
Nagar. He proved the entries in register no. 19 & 21 maintained
at the Police Station regarding movement of case properties,
exhibited as Ex. PW-28/A to Ex. PW-28/F. He also proved
acknowledgment received from FSL as Ex. PW-28/F-1. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that as per RC No. 57/21/16, he
handed over two articles to Ct. Kapil. He denied the suggestion
that he intentionally altered the date at point ‘X’ from 04.07.2019
to 05.07.2019 in Ex. PW-20/B at instance of IO. This witness
was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he
admitted that through RC No. 57/21/19, two sealed parcels were
sent to the FSL, through Ct. Kapil.
36. PW-29 Inspector Rajeev Ranjan deposed that on
30.11.2022, further investigation of this case was entrusted to
him. He further deposed that he prepared supplementary charge-
sheet regarding FSL Result and filed the same in the court. This
witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite
opportunity given to him.
37. PW-30 Ct. Ram Krishan Meena deposed that on
08.08.2019, he received two sealed pullandas from MHC(M) and
deposited the same at FSL Rohini from where he received
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 32 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
acknowledgment which was handed over by him to MHC(M).
This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused
despite opportunity given to him.
38. PW-31 HC Amit Kasana deposed that on 18.06.2019, he
joined the investigation in the present case along with IO/SI Ritu
Raj and went to Mortuary of RML hospital where dead body of
Rahul was identified by his relative and thereafter postmortem on
dead body was got conducted by IO. He further deposed that
after postmortem dead body of deceased Rahul was handed over
to his relative and IO seized three pullandas in the hospital vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-31/A. He further deposed that accused
Kamal was also taken to RML Hospital and thereafter he was
produced before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that when he left hospital for first time, Inspector Rajesh and SI
Ritu Raj also left RML Hospital and went to the PS. He also
deposed that when he again went to RML Hospital from PS for
MLC of accused Kamal, he was with Inspector Rajesh and SI
Ritu Raj. He denied the suggestion that he had not done the
investigation at any point of time or that no articles were seized
during investigation conducted by SI Ritu Raj.
39. PW-32 Retd. SI Hari Krishan deposed that on the
intervening night of 17-18.06.2019, he went to Ganga Ram
Hospital on asking of SI Rituraj where doctor handed over one
pullanda to SI Rituraj which was seized by him vide seizure
memo Ex. PW-32/A. This witness was cross-examined by Ld.
Addl. PP for the State in which he admitted that SI Ritu Raj
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 33 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
seized a sealed pullanda with the seal of SGR City Hospital, Pusa
Road containing the blood stained shirt of the injured Pawan
provided by doctors vide seizure memo Ex. PW-32/A. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know as to
whether the seizure memo Ex. PW-32/A was signed by the
doctor. He denied the suggestion that seizure memo was prepared
at Police Station and that was the reason that the doctor’s
signatures were missing on it.
40. PW-33 HC Virender was photographer at Mobile Crime
Team. He proved nine photographs, Ex. P-33 of the spot of
incident from different angles, along with certificate under Sec.
65B of The Evidence Act, Ex. PW-33/A. This witness was not
cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to
him.
41. PW-34 Inspector Rajesh Kumar was the Investigating
Officer in the present case. He deposed that on 18.06.2019 at
about 02:45 am on receiving information regarding stabbing at
Karol Bagh Metro Station, he along with SHO & Ct. Sarafat
reached at Karol Bagh Metro Station where they met with SI
Rituraj and complainant Honey Khurana. He also deposed that
after registration of FIR, investigation was handed over to him
and SI Rituraj handed over him the seizure memo and the seized
articles. He further deposed that he along with SI Rituraj and
other police staff reached at house of accused situated at 127/128,
Mohammadpur, R. K. Puram, Delhi from where he was arrested
vide arrest memo, Ex. PW-16/F. He further deposed that accused
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 34 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
made disclosure statement, Ex. PW-16/J and got recovered his
clothes and shoes which were worn by him at the time of
commission of offence and same were seized vide seizure memo
Ex. PW-16/B. He further deposed that deposed that accused also
got recovered knife from the diggy of his scooty bearing
registration no. DL-3SDG-3284 which was seized by him vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-16/D. He also proved the sketch of knife,
Ex. PW-16/E, seizure of scooty, Ex. PW-16/K, pointing out
memo, Ex. PW-16/I, site plan, Ex. PW-16/H and pointing out
memo, Ex. PW-16/L. He further deposed that he seized the
DVRs and Pen drive vide seizure memo Ex. PW-7/A & Ex.
PW-3/D. He also proved the wage register/employment record of
the Restaurant, Ex. PW-9/C to Ex. PW-9/E. He also deposed
about the collection of FSL reports, collection of CDRs and
CAFs of relevant mobile phone numbers and filing of charge-
sheet in the present case. This witness correctly identified
accused and the case properties, Ex. P-16/A to Ex. P-16/C during
his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that the place of recovery of scooty was common
parking place of the building no. 127 & 128. He also admitted
that no TIP of accused was conducted in the present case. He
denied the suggestion that no recovery was made at instance of
accused. He also denied the suggestion that accused was
manhandled, beaten and subjected to physical assault at the time
of his arrest.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 35 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
42. During trial, accused has admitted the genuineness of
following documents, under Sec. 294 Cr.PC:-
(a) Copy of FIR No. 106/2019 exhibited as Ex. A-1.
(b) Certificate under Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act.,
exhibited as Ex. A-2.
(c) Copy of DD No. 2A exhibited as Ex. A-3.
(d) Copy of DD No. 5A exhibited as Ex. A-4.
(e) Copy of DD No. 6A exhibited as Ex. A-5.
(f) Copy of DD No. 8A exhibited as Ex. A-6.
(g) Statement under Sec. 164 Cr.PC exhibited as Ex. A-7.
(h) Scaled site plan exhibited as Ex. A-8.
(i) PCR Form exhibited as Ex. A-9.
(j) Certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act
exhibited as Ex. A-10.
43. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of
accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied
all the charges against him. Accused stated that on the date of
incident, when he came out from the Restaurant after finishing
his job for going home, no one was present outside the
Restaurant. He further claimed that no quarrel/fight had taken
place with him and deceased and witnesses. He also claimed that
he had been falsely implicated in the present case and the
witnesses deposed against him were interested witnesses. He also
claimed that no disclosure statement was made by him and no
recovery was made at his instance.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 36 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
44. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Shreyas Pragyanan,
Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by Sh. Pranay Jain, Ld.
Counsel for victim and Sh. Baljinder Singh, Ld. Amicus Curie
for accused.
45. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have
corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate his
submissions, he argued that PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-3 Sh. Honey
Khurana, PW-4 Sh. Manish & PW-6 Sh. Vikas were the
eyewitnesses of the incident and they have deposed specifically
that accused Kamal stabbed deceased Rahul and PW-1 Sh.
Pawan with knife. He also argued that there is complete
consistency in the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-3 Sh.
Honey Khurana, PW-4 Sh. Manish & PW-6 Sh. Vikas and they
have corroborated each other’s version. He further argued that
CDR and CAF of mobile phone numbers carried by the accused
and the eyewitnesses showing their location at the spot of
incident has been proved by the prosecution. He further argued
that PW-11 Dr. Purushottam Singh, PW-12 Dr. Dheeraj
Bhardwaj, PW-13 Dr. C. P. Singh & PW-14 Sh. Kailash Kumar
have proved their respective FSL Reports. He also argued that
PW-17 Dr. Mukesh Khanna has proved the MLC of deceased
Rahul while PW-23 Dr. Sandeep has proved MLC of injured
Pawan. He also argued that PW-18 Dr. Vinod Kumar has proved
the postmortem report of deceased. He also argued that knife
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 37 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
used in the commission of offence has been recovered at instance
of accused. He also argued that all the prosecution witnesses are
of sterling quality. He also argued that the defence of grave and
sudden provocation and sudden fight taken by the accused are
vague in nature. He has relied on judgment titled as ‘Vijay @
Vijayakumar Vs. State, cited as (2025) 3 SCC 671′. He also
argued that since the prosecution has proved its case against
accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused should be convicted
for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/307 IPC.
46. Per Contra Ld. Amicus Curie for accused argued that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused
beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his points, he argued
that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an
arbitrary manner. He further argued that accused has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further argued that deceased
Rahul, injured Pawan and their associates were aggressor and
they attacked upon the accused while accused wanted to leave
the spot peacefully. He argued that PW-1 Sh. Pawan slapped the
accused while deceased Rahul started taunting accused and
started scuffling with him which gave grave and sudden
provocation to accused. He further argued that even it is assumed
that the stab injuries on the person of deceased Rahul and PW-1
Sh. Pawan were caused by accused Kamal, the same was result
of grave and sudden provocation given to him by deceased Rahul
and PW-1 Sh. Pawan. He further argued that accused was being
beaten by deceased and his associates and he had acted in his
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 38 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
private defence under Sec. 100 IPC. He further argued that
accused had no intention to commit the offence of murder and
the case falls within the exceptions appended to Sec. 300 IPC. He
further argued that the knife has been planted upon the accused
and no independent public witness was joined in the investigation
at the time of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife. He also
argued that PW-1 Sh. Pawan has turned hostile. He also argued
that PW-6 Sh. Vikas has also not supported the case of the
prosecution and has specifically deposed that accused had no
intention to commit the offence. He also argued that the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses are suffering from material
contradictions and hence cannot be relied upon. He has relied on
judgment titled as ‘Prem Chand Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023)
5 SCC 522’ & ‘Macchindra Namodeokar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 1993 Crl. L. J. 1957’. He also argued that since the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused
beyond the reasonable doubt, accused should be acquitted under
Sec. 302/307 IPC.
47. In the present case, charges under Sec. 302/307 IPC has
been framed against accused. These Sections have been defined
as follows:-
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of
offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC.
300 Murder
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the death isFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 39 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or
Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or
Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it
is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor,
whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave
and sudden provocation, causes the death of the
person who gave the provocation or causes the death
of any other person my mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following
provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or
voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for
killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by
anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the
public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by
anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and
sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting toFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 40 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the
power given to him by law and causes the death of the
person against whom he is exercising such right of
defence without premeditation, and without any
intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the
purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offendor, being a public servant or adding a public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice,
exceeds the power given to him by law and causes
death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes
to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of
his duty as such public servant and without ill-will
towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without
the offendor’s having taken undue advantage or acted
in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which
party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when
the person whose death is caused, being above the age
of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of
death with his own consent.
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 extendFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 41 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
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.
48. 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 assisted by Ld. Counsel for victim as
well as Ld. Amicus Curie for accused.
49. PW-1/injured Pawan, PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-3 Sh. Honey
Khurana, PW-4 Sh. Manish & PW-6 Sh. Vikas are the
eyewitnesses of the incident and their testimonies are to be
appreciated as per the established principles of law pertaining to
the testimonies of more than one eyewitnesses, keeping in view
the consistencies and contradictions in their testimonies as well
as the credibility of these witnesses.
50. PW-3 Sh. Honey Khurana is the complainant in the present
case and he was working as Manager/Captain at The Feast House
Restaurant, Karol Bagh, Delhi at the time of incident. At the time
of incident accused Kamal and deceased Rahul were also
working at the abovesaid Restaurant. PW-3/complainant Sh.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 42 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Honey Khurana deposed that prior of the incident of stabbing,
some hot words were exchanged between deceased Rahul and
accused Kamal inside the Restaurant but they had pacified them
and had sent deceased Rahul to his house. PW-2 Sh. Ishant
deposed that on 17.06.2019 at about 11:00 pm, he received call
from PW-4 Sh. Manish who told him that Rahul had some
altercation with a person in the Restaurant where he was
working. PW-4 Sh. Manish has also deposed that on 17.06.2019
at about 11:00 pm, he received call from deceased Rahul who
told him that quarrel had taken place between him and Kamal at
the Restaurant. Thus, the altercation between deceased Rahul and
accused Kamal had come to an end inside the Restaurant before
11:00 pm i.e. much prior to the incident of stabbing that took
place outside the Restaurant at about 11:45 pm on same day.
51. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana deposed that on
17.06.2019 at about 11:30/11:40 pm, he was present outside his
Restaurant ‘The Feast House’ situated at Karol Bagh near Metro
Station Gate No. 8 and he was smoking with his colleague Vikas
and in the meantime Kamal came out of the Restaurant on the
scooty who was stopped by Rahul and his friends who were
already standing outside the Restaurant. PW-3/complainant Sh.
Honey Khurana has identified himself, PW-6 Sh. Vikas and
accused Kamal while leaving the Restaurant on his scooty in
CCTV footage which was played in the court, which has been
duly proved by the prosecution. PW-6 Sh. Vikas has corroborated
the version of PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana by
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 43 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
deposing that on the day of incident at about 11:00/11:30 pm
when he was going back to his house after his duty, he met Sh.
Honey Khurana outside the Restaurant and they started talking
with each other while consuming cigarette. He also deposed that
accused Kamal came out of the Restaurant and Kamal was
leaving the Restaurant on his scooty, Rahul stopped his scooty.
PW-1/injured Pawan also deposed that accused Kamal came on
scooty and deceased Rahul started talking with him. PW-2 Sh.
Ishant deposed that accused Kamal also came out of the
Restaurant and deceased Rahul went to him. PW-4 Sh. Manish
also deposed that accused Kamal came out of the Restaurant and
he told deceased Rahul to call Kamal and they will discuss the
matter with him. Thus, through the testimonies of PW-2 Sh.
Ishant, PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana, PW-4 Sh. Manish
& PW-6 Sh. Vikas, prosecution has successfully proved that all
the abovesaid witnesses, deceased Rahul, injured Pawan and
accused Kamal were present at the spot of incident at the time of
incident and the accused has failed to put any dent on the version
of abovesaid witnesses with respect to presence of accused
Kamal, injured Pawan, deceased Rahul and abovesaid witnesses
at the spot of incident in the cross-examination of abovesaid
witnesses.
52. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana deposed that
accused Kamal came out of the Restaurant on scooty who was
stopped by Rahul and his friends who were already standing
outside the Restaurant. He further deposed that friend of Rahul
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 44 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
namely Pawan slapped accused Kamal. PW-2 Sh. Ishant deposed
that accused Kamal came out from the Restaurant and deceased
Rahul went to him. He also deposed that in the meantime, Pawan
slapped Kamal and told ‘tune Rahul ko akela samjh rakha hain’.
PW-4 Sh. Manish has also corroborated versions of PW-2 Sh.
Ishant and PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana by deposing
that in the meantime, PW-1 Sh. Pawan pushed Kamal and
slapped him and told him ‘ise akela mat samjiyo’. PW-6 Sh.
Vikas also deposed that when accused Kamal was leaving the
Restaurant on his scooty, Rahul stopped his scooty and scuffle
took place between them due to some dispute that took place
inside the Restaurant. He further deposed that one friend of
Rahul also joined the scuffle and slapped accused Kamal. There
is complete consistency in the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. Ishant,
PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana, PW-4 Sh. Manish &
PW-6 Sh. Vikas with respect to the same set of facts and the
accused has failed to put any dent on their veracity. Thus, the
prosecution has proved that when accused Kamal came out of the
Restaurant, he was stopped by deceased Rahul and his associates
and at that time PW-1/injured Pawan slapped accused Kamal and
thereafter scuffle started between accused Kamal and deceased
Rahul.
53. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana deposed that
scuffle had taken place between Rahul and Kamal. He further
deposed that he and PW-6 Sh. Vikas tried to intervene in the
matter to stop them but both of them again started fighting with
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 45 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
each other and scuffled with each other. PW-6 Sh. Vikas
corroborated the version of PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey
Khurana by deposing that deceased Rahul stopped scooty of
accused Kamal and scuffle took place between them. He also
deposed that he and PW-3 Sh. Ravi Khurana tried to pacify them
however they did not pay any heed to their request. PW-1/injured
Pawan also deposed that Rahul and Kamal started talking with
each other and some hot words were exchanged between them
and they started quarreling with each other. PW-2 Sh. Ishant also
deposed that Rahul went to accused Kamal and told him ‘ab bol
kya bolna hai’. PW-4 Sh. Manish also deposed that deceased
Rahul told accused Kamal ‘tune mereko mara kyun tha, ab maar
ke dikha, mere bhai aa gaye hain’ on which Kamal replied ‘bhai
ke saamne kyun chora ho raha hai, akele mein miliyo kabhi’.
PW-1 Sh. Pawan, PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-3/complainant Sh.
Honey Khurana, PW-4 Sh. Manish & PW-6 Sh. Vikas have
corroborated each other’s version with respect to starting of
quarrel and the role of deceased Rahul and PW-1 Injured Pawan
for starting the same. Accused has failed to put any dent on the
prosecution story as well as on the veracity of abovesaid
witnesses.
54. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana deposed that in the
meantime, accused Kamal took out knife from his backside and
stabbed three times on the chest of Rahul. He further deposed
that accused Kamal also stabbed Pawan. PW-1 Sh. Pawan also
deposed that accused Kamal stabbed on his back. PW-2 Sh.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 46 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Ishant also deposed that altercation between Kamal and Rahul
continued and thereafter accused Kamal laid down Rahul on the
ground, sat on his chest and hit knife on his chest five to six
times. PW-4 Sh. Manish also deposed that in the meantime
accused Kamal took out knife and gave 4-5 times knife blows to
Rahul on his chest. He further deposed that accused laid down
Rahul on ground and sat down on his stomach and gave knife
blows on his chest. He also deposed that accused Kamal also
gave knife blow to Pawan on back side of his chest. PW-6 Sh.
Vikas also deposed that accused Kamal took out knife from
inside his clothes on his vest and attacked Rahul with knife. He
further deposed that Rahul sustained stab injuries on his body
and fell down on the ground. Accused has failed to put any dent
on the prosecution story as well as on the veracity of abovesaid
witnesses with respect to the abovesaid set of facts. Thus, the
prosecution has proved that after accused was stopped by
deceased Rahul and injured Pawan, scuffling started between
accused Kamal and deceased Rahul and after sometime, accused
took out knife and stabbed deceased Rahul on his chest a number
of times.
55. PW-1/injured Sh. Pawan has turned hostile on the identity
of accused and his role with respect to stabbing to deceased
Rahul. PW-6 Sh. Vikas has partly turned hostile with respect to
intention of accused to stab deceased. He deposed that accused
had waived the knife in the air and in that process deceased
Rahul might have received injuries, though, in his examination-
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 47 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
in-chief, he has specifically deposed that accused Kamal took out
a knife from inside his cloth from his waist and attacked Rahul
with the knife. Thus, through the testimonies of PW-1/injured Sh.
Pawan, PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-3 Sh. Honey Khurana, PW-4 Sh.
Manish and PW-6 Sh. Vikas, prosecution has successfully proved
that accused Kamal stabbed deceased Rahul in his chest multiple
times due to which Rahul expired and he also stabbed PW-1 Sh.
Pawan on his back under the chest.
56. As per prosecution story, the weapon of offence i.e. knife
was recovered at instance of accused on the basis of his
disclosure statement, Ex. PW-16/J, which was seized by the IO
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/D. Blood stained clothes & shoes
of accused, which were worn by him at the time of commission
of offence were also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-16/B. The recovery of the case properties has to be proved
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in compliance with
the law laid down in this regard by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to
Section 25 and Section 26 of the said Act. Section 27 is based on
the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The principle
under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle
that if any fact is discovered on the basis of disclosure statement
of accused, the discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the
information given by the accused in his disclosure statement is
true. Such information may be confessional or non-inculpating in
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 48 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
nature but if any new fact is discovered from such information it
will be considered as a reliable information.
57. The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement of
accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be given
by the person who is accused of an offence and the recovery of
article or discovery of fact must be based upon the information
given by such accused.
58. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
‘Pawan Kumar @Monu Mittal Vs. State of U.P & Anr. cited as
(2015) 7 SCC 148′ has held that:-
“the facts discovered under Sec. 27 of Indian
Evidence Act and embraces the place from which
object was produced and knowledge of the accused
as to it, but information given must relate distinctly
to that effect and hence if the accused are denying
their role without proper explanation as to the
knowledge about the incriminating material
recovered on the basis of their statements in police
custody, would justify the presumption drawn by the
Courts below as to the involvement of the accused in
the Crime.
59. In the present case, accused was arrested from his house
no. 127/128, Mohammadpur, R. K. Puram, New Delhi on
18.06.2019 at about 11:00 am. Accused made disclosure
statement, Ex. PW-16/J in which he disclosed that he had kept
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 49 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
the knife in his scooty parked near his house and on the basis of
his disclosure statement, he got recovered the said kinfe which
was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/D and the
said fact was not in the knowledge of IO and hence the recovery
of knife, Ex. P-16-A at instance of accused is relevant under Sec.
27 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
60. Accused has taken the defence that no public persons was
joined in investigation at the time of recovery of weapon of
offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-16-A. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has
argued that blood stained knife was recovered at instance of
accused and it is always not possible to join the public person in
the investigation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgement
titled as Ikram Ansari Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) has observed
as under:-
“33. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the
appellant Mehfooz, Farid and Nadim that no public
witness was joined in the police team before alleged
recovery of stolen cash and articles from the house
of appellants. As noted earlier, the recovery from the
aforesaid appellants was made pursuant to the
disclosure statements made by them, while in police
custody.
It is true that no public witness was joined in
the police party before the blood stained knife was
recovered. We cannot be oblivious to the reluctance
of a common man to join such raiding partiesFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 50 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
organized by the police, lest they are compelled to
attend Police Station and Courts umpteen times at
the cost of considerable inconvenience to them,
without any commensurate benefit. Hence, no
adverse inference on account non-joining of public
witnesses in such raids can be drawn in the instant
case.”
61. Similarly Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment
titled as State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil & Another cited as 2000
VIII AD (SC) 613 observed as under:-
” Hence it is fallacious impression that when
recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made
by the accused the document prepared by the
Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such
recovery must necessarily be attested by independent
witnesses. Of course if any such statement leads to
recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating
Officer to take the signature of any person present at
that time, on the document prepared for such
recovery. But if no witness was present or if no
person had agreed to affix his signature on the
document, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition
of law that the documents so prepared by the Police
Officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery
evidence unreliable. The Court has to consider theFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 51 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
evidence of the Investigating Officer to depose to the
fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from
accused on its own worth”.
62. As per the testimony of PW-16 SI Rituraj and PW-34
Inspector Rajesh Kumar, the knife, Ex. P-16-A was recovered at
instance of accused on the basis of his disclosure statement, Ex.
PW-16/J. PW-16 SI Rituraj in his cross-examination has
specifically deposed that no public persons were present in the
parking at the time of recovery of weapon of offence from the
diggy of scooty. It is pertinent to mention that the said recovery
was made by the accused on 18.06.2019 after the arrest of
accused and it was noon time in the hot summer month of June
and the explanation given by PW-16 SI Rituraj that no public
persons were present in the parking at the time of recovery of
weapon of offence, seems to be reasonable. Applying the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgments titled
as ‘Pawan Kumar @Monu Mittal (supra), ‘ Ikram Ansari (supra)’
& ‘Sunil & Another (supra)’, this court is of considered opinion
that the prosecution has duly proved the recovery of weapon of
offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-16-A at instance of accused beyond
reasonable doubts. The recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife,
Ex. P-16-A at instance of accused is an additional evidence
against the accused.
63. PW-34 IO/Inspector Rajesh Kumar seized the knife, Ex.
P-16-A at instance of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/D.
He also seized the blood stained clothes and shoes of accused
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 52 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-16/B. After seizing the same, he
deposited the same in the Malkhana. PW-28 ASI Ravinder Tomar
has proved the entries made by him in register no. 19 & 21 with
respect to deposit of case property at Malkhana and sending the
same to FSL along with the acknowledgments received from the
FSL exhibited as Ex. PW-28/A to Ex. PW-28/F-1. PW-20 HC
Kapil Kumar deposed that on 05.07.2019, MHC(M) handed over
him two Road Certificates No. 57/21/19 & 58/21/19 containing
14 sealed samples with total 14 sealed sample parcels mentioned
in the above-said RCs and same were deposited by him at FSL,
Rohini. He proved the acknowledgment and RC Nos. exhibited
as Ex. PW-20/A to Ex. PW-20/C. Similarly, PW-30 Ct. Ramkesh
Meena deposed that on 08.08.2019, he received two sealed
pullandas from MHC(M) which were deposited by him at FSL
and he received acknowledgment from there. PW-11 Dr.
Purushottam Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini,
PW-12 Sh. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology),
FSL, Rohini, PW-13 Dr. C. P. Singh, Assistant Director
(Physics), FSL, Rohini and PW-14 Sh. Kailash Kumar, Junior
Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner, Cyber Forensic Division
have deposed that they received the sealed pullandas at FSL from
the Police Station. Thus, the prosecution has proved the safe
custody of case properties from the point of seizure till the
opening of the same at FSL for examination and accused has
failed to create any doubt that the case properties in the present
case were ever tempered.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 53 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
64. After Rahul was admitted to the hospital due to stab
injuries his clothes were sealed by the doctor which were seized
by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-31/A. IO had also seized
the weapon of offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-16-A, Ex. PW-16/D. The
clothes of deceased Rahul as well as weapon of offence were sent
to FSL, Rohini for examination and the said exhibits were
examined by PW-11 Dr. Purushottam Singh, Assistant Director
(Physics), FSL, Rohini who proved his report, Ex. PW-11/A in
this regard. PW-11 Dr. Purushottam Singh deposed that he
opened the parcels and the cut marks on the clothes were
compared with the weapon i.e. knife and he opined that cut
marks Q1-Q-7 on the clothes could have been caused with knife.
Thus, the prosecution has proved that the cut marks on the
clothes of deceased could have been caused with the weapon of
offence i.e. knife, Ex. P-16-A recovered at instance of accused.
65. During the investigation, IO had seized the exhibits from
the spot of incident as well as from the doctor at hospital. The
said exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini and same were examined
by Sh. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology) who
proved his report, Ex. PW-12/A, along with allalic data, Ex.
PW-12/B. As per the DNA Report, Ex. PW-12/A, the biological
stains i.e. blood stains present on Ex. 6A (shirt of accused) & 6b
(pant of accused) were from the same source as of the source of
Ex. 12 (blood sample of accused). The biological stains i.e. blood
stains present on Ex. 9A (shirt of deceased), 11a (right hand nail
of deceased) & 11b (left hand’s nail of deceased) were from the
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 54 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
same source as of the source of Ex. 10 (gauze cloth of piece of
deceased). A male DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.
5 (shirt of injured), however, it was not matching with the DNA
profile generated from source of Ex. 10 (gauze cloth piece of
deceased) & Ex. 12 (blood sample of accused). Thus, PW-12 Sh.
Dheeraj Bhardwaj has proved that blood was found on the
clothes of accused, deceased Rahul and injured Pawan.
66. PW-13 Dr. C. P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL,
Rohini and PW-14 Sh. Kailash Kumar, Junior Forensic/Assistant
Chemical Examiner, Cyber Forensic Division have proved their
reports with respect to the genuineness of the CCTV footage,
exhibited as Ex. PW-13/A & Ex. PW-14/A, vide which the video
footage was found to be continuous and there was no indication
of alteration in the continuous video footage of CCTV recording.
Both the witnesses were not cross-examined on behalf of accused
despite opportunity given to him. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey
Khurana has identified the accused Kamal, PW-6 Sh. Vikas as
well as himself in the CCTV footage showing their presence at
the spot of incident. Thus, the CCTV footages coupled with FSL
Reports, Ex. PW-13/A & Ex. PW-14/A have strengthened the
case of the prosecution.
67. PW-17 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Khanna has proved the MLC of
deceased Rahul, Ex. PW-17/A. He deposed that patient namely
Rahul arrived in the Casualty Ward of the hospital at about 12:05
am on 18.06.2019 and he gave him medical treatment as per
SOP, however, he could not survive and expired. PW-18 Dr.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 55 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Vinod Kumar K.N. has proved the postmortem report of
deceased Rahul exhibited as Ex. PW-18/A. He deposed that as
per report, Ex. PW-18/A the cause of death was ‘haemorrhagic
shock and its complications consequent upon stab injury
sustained over thoracic region involving lungs and base of aorta’.
PW-23 Dr. Sandeep has proved MLC of PW-1/injured Pawan,
exhibited as Ex. PW-23/A. PW-26 Dr. Arvind Kumar has proved
the opinion regarding the nature of injuries on the person of
PW-1/injured Pawan, exhibited as Ex. PW-26/A as per his
opinion, the nature of injury on the person of PW-1 Sh. Pawan
was found to be ‘grievous’ in nature. Since the prosecution has
proved that the injuries on the person of deceased Rahul and
PW-1/injured Pawan were caused by accused Kamal through
knife, Ex. P-16-A, the prosecution has successfully proved that
accused Kamal caused the death of deceased Rahul and also
caused grievous injury on the person of PW-1/injured Pawan.
68. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but
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.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 56 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
69. 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 ultimately
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 everyFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 57 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
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 to 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.”
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 58 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
70. 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. In the instant
case we do not fine her evidence to be of such
quality.”
71. 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.
72. 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 PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-3/complainant Sh.
Honey Khurana & PW-4 Sh. Manish 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 Sh. Ishant,
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 59 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana & PW-4 Sh. Manish are
clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and have been
corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses, medical &
scientific evidence on record and the circumstances.
73. Through the evidence led by the prosecution, the
prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubts
that accused Kamal caused death of deceased Rahul by stabbing
him multiple times on his chest and also caused grievous hurt on
the person of PW-1/injured Sh. Pawan. Ld. Amicus Curie for
accused has argued that accused had no intention to commit
murder of deceased Rahul and PW-1/injured Sh. Pawan and the
accused acted in his private defence in a sudden fight and under
grave and sudden provocation given to him by deceased Rahul
and PW-1/injured Sh. Pawan. He argued that at the maximum,
accused can be convicted under Sec. 302 Part-II & 308 IPC. Ld.
Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for victim have
argued that the case does not fall within the purview of first and
fourth exceptions appended to Sec. 300 IPC. This court has to
analyze the facts of the present case qua the defences raised by
the accused.
74. In the present case, accused Kamal has caused death of
deceased Rahul and he has also caused grievous hurt to the
person of PW-1/injured Sh. Pawan. Sec. 100 IPC deals with the
circumstances under which a person has a right to cause the death
of other while Sec. 101 IPC deals with the circumstances under
which harm other than death can be caused to other person in
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 60 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
private defence. Sec. 100 & 101 IPC have been defined as
follows:-
100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to
causing death:-
The right of private defence of the body extends, under
the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding
section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any
other harm to the assailant, if the offence which
occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the
descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:–
Firstly:- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the
apprehension that death will otherwise be the
consequence of such assault;
Secondly:- Such an assault as may reasonably cause
the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be
the consequence of such assault;
Thirdly:- An assault with the intention of committing
rape;
Fourthly:- An assault with the intention of gratifying
unnatural lust;
Fifthly:- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or
abducting;
Sixthly:- An assault with the intention of wrongfully
confining a person, under circumstances which may
reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will beFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 61 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
unable to have recourse to the public authorities for
his release.
Seventhly:- An act of throwing or administering acid
or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may
reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt
will otherwise be the consequence of such act.
101. When such right extends to causing any harm other than
death:-
If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enu-
merated in the last preceding section, the right of
private defence of the body does not extend to the
voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does
extend, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99,
to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm
other than death.
75. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana has specifically
deposed that deceased Rahul had called his friends. PW-1 Sh.
Pawan, PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-4 Sh. Manish have specifically
deposed that they along with Sandeep went to the spot of incident
after they were called by deceased Rahul who told them that he
had some altercation with the accused at the Restaurant. Thus,
the deceased and his associates were five in number and PW-1
Sh. Pawan slapped accused while deceased Rahul started
scuffling with him. The deceased and his associates were not
carrying any weapon while accused was carrying a knife with
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 62 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
him and in these circumstances, the accused had no reasonable
apprehension of his death by the deceased and his associates,
however, he had the apprehension of sustaining injuries which
could have been grievous in nature as the number of persons who
quarreled with him was five. In these circumstances, this court is
of considered opinion that accused had the right of private
defence but he has exceeded the said right by causing death of
deceased Rahul and hence complete benefit of the same cannot
be given to the accused but in these circumstances, the case may
not fall under the purview of Sec. 300 IPC.
76. Accused has also taken the defence under exception no. 4
appended to Sec. 300 IPC. Ld. Amicus Curie for accused argued
that it was a sudden fight and hence accused should be given the
benefit of the same. Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld.
Counsel for victim have argued that the accused had taken the
undue advantage by using knife and hence the said exception is
not applicable in the present case. Exception no. 4 appended to
Sec. 300 IPC reads as under:-
Exception 4.– Culpable homicide is not murder if it
is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight
in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without the offender having taken undue advantage or
acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 63 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
Explanation.– It is immaterial in such cases which
party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
77. From the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-3 Sh. Honey
Khurana, PW-4 Sh. Manish and PW-6 Sh. Vikas, it has come on
record that accused came out to the Restaurant on his scooty and
he was stopped by deceased Rahul and at that time PW-1 Sh.
Pawan slapped him. It has also come on record that deceased
Rahul started scuffling with accused and thereafter deceased
Rahul and PW-1 Sh. Pawan were stabbed by accused with a
knife. Deceased Rahul and his associates were not carrying any
weapon while accused was carrying a knife which was used by
him in the commission of offence and hence he has taken undue
advantage in the sudden fight and hence exception no. 4 of Sec.
300 IPC is not applicable in the present case.
78. Accused has also taken defence of grave and sudden
provocation under exception-1 of Sec. 300 IPC. Ld. Amicus
Curie for accused argued that accused was going to his home
peacefully and he was stopped by deceased Rahul and PW-1 Sh.
Pawan and at that time deceased Rahul started scuffling with
accused while showing his power through his associates while
PW-1 Sh. Pawan slapped accused and they gave grave and
sudden provocation to accused. Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well
as Ld. Counsel for victim has argued that slapping and scuffling
are not sufficient for giving grave and sudden provocation to
anyone. The rival contentions of accused and State need to be
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 64 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
analyzed minutely. Exception no. 1 of Sec. 300 IPC reads as
under:-
Exception 1.– When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst
deprived of the power of self-control by grave and
sudden provocation, causes the death of the person
who gave the provocation or causes the death of any
other person by mistake or accident. The above
exception is subject to the following provisos:–
Firstly:- That the provocation is not sought or
voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for
killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly:- That the provocation is not given by
anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such
public servant.
Thirdly:- That the provocation is not given by anything
done in the lawful exercise of the right of private
defence.
Explanation.– Whether the provocation was grave and
sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting
to murder is a question of fact.
79. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
‘Vijay @ Vijayakumar Vs. State, (2025) 3 SCC 671′ while
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 65 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
dealing with the defence of grave and sudden provocation
has held as under:-
“20. In order to bring the case within Exception 1, the following
conditions must be complied with:-
(i) The deceased must have given provocation to the
accused;
(ii) The provocation must be grave;
(iii) The provocation must be sudden;
(iv) The offender, by reason of the side provocation, shall
have been deprived of his power of self-control;
(v) He should have killed the deceased during the
continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-
control; and
(vi) The offender must have caused the death of the person
who gave the provocation or that of any other person
by mistake or accident.
21. In other words, before Exception 1 can be invoke, the
accused must establish the following circumstances:-
(i) there was a provocation which was both grave and
sudden;
(ii) such provocation had deprived the accused of his power
of self-control; and
(iii) whilst the accused was so deprived of his power of self-
control, he had caused the death of the victim.
22. In order to bring his case under Exception 1 to Section 300
IPC the following ingredients:-
(i) The provocation was sudden; (ii) the provocation was
grave; and (iii) loss of self-control. These three ingredients
may be considered one by one:
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 66 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
22. (i) Whether the provocation was sudden or not does
not present much difficulty. The word “sudden’
involves two elements. First, the provocation must be
unexpected. If an accused plans in advance to receive
a provocation in order to justify the subsequent
homicide, the provocation cannot be said to be sudden.
Secondly, the interval between the provocation and the
homicide should be brief. If the man giving the
provocation is killed within a minute after the
provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. If the
man is killed six hours after the provocation, it is not a
case of sudden provocation.
22.(ii) the main difficulty lies in deciding whether a certain
provocation was grave or not. A bare statement by the
accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will
not be accepted by the court. The court has to apply an
objective test for deciding whether the provocation was
grave or not. A good test for deciding whether a
certain provocation was grave or not is this: “Is a
reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of
such provocation?” If the answer is in the affirmative,
the provocation will be classed as grave. If the answer
is in the negative, the provocation is not grave. In this
context, the expression ‘reasonable man’ means a
normal or an average person. A reasonable man is not
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 67 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
the ideal man or the perfect being. A normal man
sometimes loses temper. There is, therefore no
inconsistency in saying that, a reasonable man may
lose self-control as a result of grave provocation. A
reasonable or normal or average man is a legal fiction.
The reasonable man will vary from society to society.
A Judge should not impose his standards in this
matter. By training, a Judge is a patient man. But the
reasonable man or the normal man need not have the
same standard of behaviour as the judge himself. The
reasonable man under consideration is a member of
the society, in which the accused was living. So,
education and social conditions of the accused are
relevant factors. An ordinary exchange of abuse is a
matter of common occurrence. A reasonable man does
not lose self-control merely on account of an ordinary
exchange of abuses. So, courts do not treat an ordinary
exchange of abuses as a basis for grave provocation.
On the other hand, in most societies, adultery is
looked upon as a very serious matter. So, quotes are
prepared to treat adultery as a basis for grave
provocation.
22.(iii). The question of loss of self-control comes up
indirectly in deciding whether a particular provocation
was grave or not. So, if it is proved that the accused
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 68 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
did receive grave and sudden provocation, the court is
generally prepared to assume that homicide was
committed while the accused was deprived of the
power of self-control. In some cases, it may be possible
for the prosecution to prove that the accused
committed the murder with a cool head in spite of
grave provocation. But such cases will be rare. So,
when the accused has established grave and sudden
provocation, the court will generally hold that he has
discharged the burden that lay upon him under
Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
23. What should be the approach of the court? The
provocation must be such as will upset not merely a
hasty and hot-tempered or hypersensitive person, but
one of ordinary sense and calmness. The Court has to
consider whether a reasonable person placed in the
same position as accused would have behaved in the
manner in which the accused behaved on receiving the
same provocation. If it appears that the action of the
accused was out of all proportion to the gravity or
magnitude of the provocation offered, the case will not
fall under the exception. The case can only fall under
the exception when the court is able to hold that
provided the alleged provocation is given, every
normal person would behave or act in the same way as
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 69 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
the accused in the circumstances in which the accused
was placed, acted.
80. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
judgment titled as ‘Budhi Singh Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh, cited as (2012) 4 SCC (Crl.) 374′ has held as
under:-
“25. As we have discussed above, premeditation and
intention to kill are two vital circumstances amongst
others which are to be considered by the court before
holding the accused guilty of an offence under Sec.
302 or Section 304 IPC. At the cost of repetition, we
may notice that from the prosecution evidence, it is
not established that the accused had the intention to
kill the deceased or it was a premeditated crime. The
learned counsel appearing for the State has contended
that the very fact that the accused had come out with a
tobru completely establishes the intention to kill and,
thus, the offence would fall under Section 302 IPC. It
cannot be disputed that the accused came out with a
tobru but, at the same time, it is also clear that this is
the most easily available weapon in that part of the
hills and is used regularly by the communities. Beyond
this factor, there is no evidence of animosity,
premeditation or intention to kill. The accused did
give a blow by tobru on the head of the deceasedFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 70 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
which proved fatal. This was the result of the grave
and sudden provocation where the father of both the
deceased and the accused was being abused,
assaulted and ill-treated by the deceased, who was in
a drunken state.
26. Thus, in the facts of the prsent case, a sudden
and grave provocation took place which would bring
the offence within the ambit of Exception 1 of Section
300 IPC and hence under Section 304 Part I IPC as
the accused had caused such bodily injury to the
deceased which, to his knowledge, was likely to cause
death as he had inflicted injuries on the head of
deceased. Having held the accused guilty of an
offence under Section 304 Part I IPC, we award the
sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and to a
fine of Rs. 5000 in default thereto to undergo further
imprisonment for six months”.
82. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
‘Prem Chand Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 5 SCC 522’ has
held as under:-
“28. Though there is no specific admission by the
appellant that he had stabbed the victim or the other
injured witnesses, reading of the contents of Ext.96
does evince an act of retaliation spurred by sudden
provocation resulting in a quarrel as well as a scuffleFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 71 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
which ultimately, most unfortunately, cost the victim
his life and left some others injured. The appellant too
sustained injuries in the scuffle and there is evidence
on record that one of the injuries was grievous, yet, the
criminal law was surprisingly not set in motion to
bring to book those responsible for inflicting such
injury. It was in a sudden quarrel, which could have
been provoked by the victim and P.W.2, that blows
followed from each side. Most importantly, the
circumstances in which the incident occurred does
clearly negate any suggestion of premeditation in
mind.
29. That apart, it cannot be overlooked that while
the victim was middle-aged, the appellant was in his
late fifties. At the time of the alleged incident, apart
from P.W.s 2 and 3, Shankarrao Fartode, Umrao
Charde, Ramesh Korde (all three not examined) were
present at the spot, as per the version of P.W.2. It is
indeed improbable that in the presence of such
persons, the appellant wielding a weapon like a knife
would come to the spot with an intention to commit the
offence of murder overpowering all of them without
any sufficient reason or provocation. In our opinion,
the trial court lacked in objectivity by not examining
the facts and circumstances as to whether the situationFIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 72 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
was such as is likely to reasonably cause an
apprehension in the mind of the appellant that there
was imminent danger to his body, of either death or
grievous hurt being caused to him, if he did not act in
private defence. To impute intention to cause death or
the intention to cause that particular injury, which
proved fatal, in these circumstances seems to be
unreasonable.”
83. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana deposed that some
hot words were exchanged between deceased Rahul and accused
Kamal in the Restaurant but they had pacified them and had sent
Rahul to his house but Rahul called his friends outside the
Restaurant. Thus, after the exchange of hot words inside the
Restaurant, deceased Rahul did not go to his home and rather
called his four friends by telling them that he had altercation with
accused Kamal inside the Restaurant. PW-4 Sh. Manish deposed
that on 17.06.2019 at about 11:00 pm, he received call from
deceased Rahul who told him that quarrel had taken place
between him and Kamal and thereafter he along with Pawan,
Sandeep and Ishant went to the spot of incident.
PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana in his cross-examination
deposed that he had advised accused Kamal to stay in the
Restaurant on that night as altercation had taken place between
him and Rahul about 15 mintues back as he came to know that
deceased Rahul had called some of his friends. He specifically
deposed that at the time of incident, accused Kamal was alone
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 73 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
and deceased Rahul was with his friends. Since accused Kamal
was going home alone and he had the knowledge that deceased
Rahul had called his friends for beating him, carrying of knife for
self defence in itself does not mean that accused had the intention
to kill deceased Rahul or his friends.
84. At the time of incident, accused Rahul left for home on his
scooty. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana deposed that
accused Kamal came out from the Restaurant on his scooty who
was stopped by deceased Rahul and friends who were already
standing outside the Restaurant. Thus, deceased Rahul and his
four friends were waiting for accused Kamal outside the
Restaurant. PW-3/complainant Sh. Honey Khurana specifically
deposed that friend of Rahul namely Pawan slapped accused
Kamal. PW-6 Sh. Vikas also deposed that when accused Kamal
was leaving the Restaurant on his scooty, deceased Rahul stopped
his scooty and scuffled took place between them due to some
dispute that took place inside the Restaurant. He further deposed
that one of friend of Rahul also joined the scuffle and he slapped
accused Kamal. PW-2 Sh. Ishant also deposed that Pawan
slapped Kamal and told him ‘tune Rahul ko akela samjh rakha
hain’. PW-4 Sh. Manish also deposed that PW-1 Sh. Pawan
pushed accused Kamal and slapped him and told him ‘ise akela
mat samjiyo’. He also deposed that deceased Rahul said to Kamal
”tune mereko mara kyon tha, ab maar ke dikha, mere bhai aa
gaye hain’. He further deposed that on this Kamal replied ‘bhai
ke samne kyon chora ho raha hai, akele mein miliyo kabhi’. From
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 74 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. Ishant, PW-3 Sh. Honey Khurana &
PW-6 Sh. Vikas, following facts have come on record:-
(i) That accused Kamal was going to his home on his
scooty and he was stopped by deceased Rahul and his
friends.
(ii) Accused Kamal was not the aggressor and he did not
start the quarrel and rather tried to avoid it by saying
‘bhai ke samne kyon chora ho raha hai, akele mein
miliyo kabhi’. Deceased Rahul and his friends were
the aggressors in the present case.
(iii) That accused Kamal was instigated/provoked by
deceased Rahul by using aggressive language i.e. ‘ab
bol kya bolna hai’; ”tune mereko mara kyon tha, ab
maar ke dikha, mere bhai aa gaye hain’ etc.
(iv) That PW-1/Sh. Pawan instigated/provoked accused
Kamal by using aggresive language i.e. tune Rahul ko
akela samjh rakha hain’ & ‘ise akela mat samjiyo’.
(v) That PW-1/injured Pawan instigated/provoked
accused Kamal by slapping him in presence of his
senior (Manager)/PW-3 Sh. Honey Khurana, his
colleague PW-6 Sh. Vikas, deceased Rahul and his
other friends.
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 75 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
(vi) That deceased Rahul started scuffling with accused
Kamal and the scuffling was not started by accused
Kamal.
(vii) That accused Kamal did not use the knife in the
commission of offence at first instance and same was
used by him after some time during the scuffle which
shows that accused had no intention to kill deceased
as well as his friends at intial stage.
(viii) That the provocation was not shought by the accused
and he was not voluntarily provoked by himself.
(ix) That the provocation was not given by deceased
Rahul and Pawan to accused in obedience of law and
they were not public servants who would have been
using their lawful powers.
(x) That the provocation was not given by deceased
Rahul and PW-1 Sh. Pawan to accused Kamal in
exercise of their right of their private defence and
rather they were the aggressors who were five in
number while the accused was alone and had the right
of private defence.
(xi) That in the incident, accused Kamal had also
sustained several injuries as per his MLC, Ex.
PW-25/A.
85. In view of above-said discussion with respect to the facts
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 76 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
proved by the prosecution, this court is of considered opinion that
if any person is slapped publicly espacially in presence of his
seniors/collegues and friends of his opponent and he is also
beaten by a group of people when he is alone on his side, the
grave and sudden provocation to such person will be a natural
phenomena. This court is of considered opinion that deceased
Rahul and PW-1 Sh. Pawan gave a provocation to accused Kamal
which was sudden as well as grave in nature and the accused
under the said temporary grave and sudden provocation, lost the
power of self control and stabbed deceased Rahul multiple times
and he also stabbed PW-1 Sh. Pawan on his back. Since accused
was going to his home on his scooty and he tried to avoid any
kind of quarrel, he had no intention to kill deceased Rahul or his
friends at first instance and the act of accused was not pre-
meditated. There was no time gap between the grave and sudden
provocation and the act of accused Kamal i.e. stabbing to
deceased Rahul and PW-1 Pawan by accused Kamal. Thus, the
accused has established the first exeception of Sec. 300 IPC in
his favour and hence the benefit of the same is being given to the
accused.
86. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of
considered opinion that accused had no intention to commit the
murder of deceased Rahul and to attempt to commit murder of
PW-1 Sh. Pawan. However, accused had the knowledge that by
stabbing deceased Rahul and PW-1 Sh. Pawan, he could have
caused their death. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the
FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 77 of 78
State Vs. Kamal
ingredients of Sec. 302/307 IPC against the accused. However,
the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of Sec.
304 Part-II & Sec. 308 IPC against the accused beyond
reasonable doubts.
87. Accordingly, accused Kamal is convicted for the offences
punishable under Sec. 304 Part-II & Sec. 308 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date: 2026.04.11 on 11th day of April, 2026 15:26:50 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:11.04.2026 FIR No. 106/2019, PS: Rajinder Nagar, Page No. 78 of 78 State Vs. Kamal