Delhi High Court
Nanhe @ Lanka vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 29 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 24th AUGUST, 2016
DECIDED ON : 29th AUGUST, 2016
+ CRL.A.1485/2014
NANHE @ LANKA ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Naomi Chandra, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 20.08.2014 of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.26/2014 arising out of
FIR No. 13/2013 PS Sultan Puri by which the appellant - Nanhe @ Lanka
was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
By an order dated 08.09.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven
years with fine `5,000/-.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as depicted in the charge-
sheet was that on 06.01.2013 at about 02.15 p.m. in front of gate Indra Park,
E-7 block, near Jalebi Chowk, Sultan Puri, Delhi, the appellant inflicted
injuries to master Aditya in an attempt to commit murder. The police
machinery came into motion on getting information about the incident at
3.58 p.m. vide Daily Diary (DD) No.31A (Ex.PW-1/A). The investigation
was assigned to HC Ramavtar. The investigating Officer after recording
Sumit Kumar's statement (Ex-PW-3/A) lodged First Information Report.
The victim was taken for medical examination. Statements of the witnesses
conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during
investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.
Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the
appellant. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined fourteen
witnesses and relied on various documents. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the
appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.
The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not
appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. It ignored the
material discrepancy whereby presence of the complainant was doubtful at
the spot. The appellant was under the influence of liquor and had no
intention to inflict injuries to commit murder.
4. Material testimony to infer the appellant's guilt is that of PW-7
(Aditya), aged around 11 years. The learned Presiding Officer put various
questions to the child witness before recording his statement to ascertain if
he was able to give rationale answers to the questions put to him. After
recording satisfaction that the child was a competent witness, his statement
was recorded on oath. In his Court statement, the injured child implicated
the appellant and assigned a definite and specific role to him in the crime.
He disclosed that on 06.01.2013 at about 11/12 noon, he was present at the
corner on the road and had gone to play cricket in the park. Pointing out
towards the accused, the witness stated that he demanded money from him
and on his refusal, the accused took out a knife and stabbed him on his
abdomen. He further disclosed that the accused used to roam in the park
where they used to play cricket. In the cross-examination, he was fair to
admit that his brother Sumit was not present at the spot and had arrived at
the spot after about ten minutes of the occurrence. He was emphatic to deny
if the statement was given by him at the behest of his mother.
5. On scanning the entire testimony of the witness, it reveals that
nothing material has been extracted to discard his cogent and natural
version. The accused did not deny his presence at the spot. He did not deny
if he had no confrontation with the injured child and had not stabbed him. In
the 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused admitted his presence at the spot and
claimed himself to be under the influence of liquor. He further admitted that
he had given a blow to the victim's jacket. The accused did not offer
plausible explanation as to why he had 'kept' a knife in his possession and
why it was put against victim's jacket. The accused admitted recovery of
the knife from his possession. No ulterior motive was assigned to the child
witness for making a statement against him. In the absence of any prior
animosity or ill-will, the child was not expected to implicate the accused.
Being an injured, he must be interested to book the real culprit.
6. The knife (Ex.P-1) recovered from accused was connected with
the crime. FSL report (Ex.PW-9/G) reflects that the cut marks found on the
victim's clothes were caused by the metallic knife recovered in this case.
The patient was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital soon after the occurrence
and the arrival time recorded therein is 02.45 p.m. The victim had sustained
injuries 'grievous' in nature on his abdomen; these are not self-inflicted
injuries. PW-4 (Dr.Manoj Dhingra) after examining the recovered knife
prepared its sketch (Ex.PW-4/A) and was of the view that injuries found on
the victim's body were possible with the said weapon. PW-10 (D.K.Chabra)
has proved the MLC (Ex.PW-10/A) prepared by Dr.Ashok Gupta. PW-5
(Dr.Kapil Sethi) also examined the patient and found stab injury of 12 to 15
c.m. depth. He further informed that considering the injury, explorative
laparatomy was conducted; three intestinal perforations were closed. The
victim remained admitted in the hospital till 10.01.2013. After going
through the discharge summary (Ex.PW-5/A), he opined that the injuries
suffered by the victim were 'grievous' in nature and could have become life
threatening if left untreated. The injuries sustained by the victim reveal that
the said blow was given with great force. There was no provocation from
the victim's side to force the accused to stab on his vital organ.
7. True, some discrepancy has emerged about the presence of the
victim's brother PW-3 (Sumit Kumar) at the spot. It, however, does not
discredit the victim's version given before the Court. Even if PW-3's
testimony is discarded or ignored, it won't affect the prosecution case
whereby the appellant was taken as a perpetrator of the crime.
8. The impugned judgment based upon fair appreciation of the
evidence warrants no intervention. Sentence Order is also based upon fair
reasoning and no modification or alteration is required.
9. The appeal lacks in merits and is dismissed.
10. 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
AUGUST 29, 2016 / tr
