Rashid @ Raju Mental vs The State Of The Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 761 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               RESERVED ON : 29th JANUARY, 2014
                               DECIDED ON : 10th FEBRUARY, 2014

+                         CRL.A. 1014/2012

       RASHID @ RAJU MENTAL                              ..... Appellant

                          Through :   Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

       THE STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI                     ..... Respondent

                          Through :   Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by Rashid @ Raju Mental to

challenge the legality of a judgment dated 26.05.2012 in Sessions Case

No. 67/11 arising out of FIR No. 324/09 PS Govind Puri by which he was

held perpetrator of the crime under Section 307 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms

Act. By an order dated 28.05.2012, he was awarded RI for ten years with

fine ` 10,000/- under Section 307 IPC and RI for two years with fine `

5,000/- under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 19.08.2009 at

about 08.30 P.M. in a park near Gali No. 25, near Masjid, Tughlakabad

Extension, he inflicted injuries to Asfaq Ahmad by a knife. The police

swung into action after getting information about the stabbing incident

inside the park and Daily Diary (DD) No. 30A (Ex.PW-6/A) was entered

at 09.49 P.M. at PS Govind Puri. The investigation was assigned to SI

Sahi Ram who with Const. Manoj went to the park and found complainant

- Asfaq Ahmad lying injured there. He was taken in a TSR to Trauma

Centre, AIIMS and admitted there. The Investigating Officer lodged First

Information Report after recording complainant - Asfaq Ahmad's

statement (Ex.PW-2/A). On 21.08.2009, the appellant was arrested and

from his possession a butandar knife (Ex.P1) was recovered. The exhibits

were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After

completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted; the accused

was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined eight

witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statement, he pleaded false

implication and denied complicity in the crime. However, he did not

examine any witness in defence. After considering the rival contentions of

the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the

impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court

did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell

into grave error in relying upon the testimony of the complainant without

independent corroboration. The appellant had no intention to inflict fatal

injuries. Only a single blow was given on the body of the injured.

Ingredient of Section 307 IPC were not attracted and proved. Learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the injuries were inflicted by the

complainant with the avowed object and intention to kill.

4. The occurrence took place on 19.08.2009 at about 08.30 P.M.

Daily Diary (DD) No. 30A (Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded regarding the said

incident at 09.49 P.M. at PS Govind Puri. Soon thereafter, PW-8 (SI Sahi

Ram) went to the spot and took the injured / victim to the Trauma Centre,

AIIMS. The MLC (Ex.PW-4/C) records the arrival time of the patient at

23.15 hours. It records that the patient was found lying in a park. The

injuries were opined 'dangerous' by sharp weapon. Certainly, there is

delay in lodging the report on 20.08.2009 at 10.45 P.M. However,

reasonable explanation given by the prosecution witnesses that the victim

was not in a fit condition to make statement soon after his arrival at the

Trauma Centre and was crying in pain inspires confidence. When he was

declared fit to make statement, next day, detailed statement implicating

the appellant was recorded. In the statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the

complainant gave vivid description of the occurrence and named the

appellant for inflicting injuries by a knife on his abdomen. In the Court

statement, the complainant proved the version given to the police at the

first instance and assigned specific motive to the appellant for inflicting

injuries to him. The appellant, who considered himself to be the boss of

the area ordered the complainant to stand up from the bench on which he

was sitting. When the complainant did not obey his command, an

altercation took place. The accused took out a knife and inflicted blow on

the abdomen. In the cross-examination, the complainant disclosed that he

knew the appellant prior to the incident being resident of Tughlakabad

Extension. Though, he had no familiarity with the appellant, he had seen

him in locality. He denied the suggestion that injuries were caused to him

at some other place and the appellant was falsely implicated at the

instance of the police. Despite searching cross-examination, no material

discrepancy could be extracted or elicited to disbelieve the injured

witness. No ulterior motive was assigned to him for falsely deposing

against the appellant. In the absence of prior enmity, the victim who had

sustained 'dangerous' injuries on vital organ was not imagined to spare

the real offender and to rope in an innocent one. The appellant left the

victim alone in the secluded area after causing injuries but for immediate

medical aide given to him. There is nothing on record to show, if any

public person was available at the spot to be examined as an eye witness.

The fact that the victim was taken to Trauma Centre after the police came

to know about the occurrence shows that no independent public witness

was available at the place of incident. The occurrence took place on a

trivial issue when the appellant who was under the influence of liquor got

annoyed and the victim did not obey him to spare him the bench on which

he was sitting. Recovery of the weapon (Ex.P1) from his possession

further connects him with the crime. The appellant had no earthly reason

to keep a 'deadly' weapon in his possession for no specific purpose.

5. In 'Mano Dutt and Anr. Vs. State of U.P.', 2012 (4) SCC 79,

the Supreme Court held :

"Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain, protect the real culprit. We need not discuss more elaborately the weightage that should be attached by the Court to the testimony of an injured witness. In fact, this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res integra, as has been consistently stated by this Court in uniform language."

6. Statement of the complainant is not in conflict with medical

evidence. PW-3 (Dr.Chinmay Singh) proved the signatures of

Dr.Arundeep Arora on X-ray report (Ex.PW-3/A). PW-4 (Dr.Tejaswi)

identified the signatures of Dr.Subhash Chandra on MLC (Ex.PW-4/C)

containing sketch of weapon of offence (Ex.PW-4/B) and subsequent

opinion (Ex.PW-4/A). PW-5 (Rajkumar) identified signatures of

Dr.Sabeer Khan on MLC (Ex.PW-4/C) which records that a penetrating

wound of 3 x 1 c.m. was found present over left hypochondrium. The

nature of injuries sustained by the victim was 'dangerous' by sharp

weapon. The victim remained admitted in the hospital for about eight

days. The injuries were on the vital organ i.e. abdomen. Knowledge can

be imputed to the appellant that the injuries intentionally inflicted to the

victim on the vital organ with a sharp weapon like knife over a trivial

issue without any provocation by unarmed victim could have resulted in

his death. The judgment is based upon fair appraisal of the evidence and

needs no interference.

7. By an order dated 28.05.2012, the appellant was sentenced to

undergo RI for ten years with fine ` 10,000/- under Section 307 IPC and

RI for two years with fine ` 5,000/- under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act.

Nominal roll dated 22.08.2012 reveals that he has already undergone one

year, eight months and twenty days incarceration as on 21.08.2012. It is

informed that the appellant is the only son of his aged parents belongs to

poor strata of society. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

the sentence order is modified and the substantive sentence of the

appellant is reduced to RI for seven years under Section 307 IPC. Other

terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed except that

the default sentence for non-payment of fine under Section 307 IPC would

be two months and under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act one month.

8. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court

record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of the

order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 10, 2014/tr