Delhi High Court
Sumit vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.08.2025
+ CRL.A. 969/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL) 1722/2024
SUMIT .....Appellant
Through: Appellant in person through V.C.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
with SI Akash Kumar, P.S.
Bhajanpura.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the
judgement of conviction dated 02.05.2024 and order on sentence dated
29.07.2024, ASJ-02 (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No.
401/2021 arising out of FIR No. 367/2021 registered under section 307 IPC
at P.S. Bhajanpura.
Vide the aforesaid order on sentence, the appellant was directed to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years alongwith fine of
Rs.20,000/-, in default whereof he was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for 1 year, for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC.
Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellant.
2. The prosecution's case in a nutshell is that on 08.08.2021, an
emergency PCR call vide DD No. 47A was received and entrusted to ASI
Om Prakash, who reached the spot and found the complainant bleeding and
sent to JPC hospital from where he was referred to GTB Hospital, where she
remained admitted. In her statement, the complainant stated that at about
11:00 A.M., the complainant Neha went to D-Block Market, Bhajanpura, to
purchase vegetables. When she reached Gali No. 1 near Sachdeva Marriage
Home, she encountered the appellant/Sumit, who was her boyfriend, but was
already married to another woman. Upon a brief exchange of words, the
accused allegedly took the complainant into a narrow lane, caught her by the
neck, and put a sharp object on the neck, causing her to bleed, to which she
shouted due to which the appellant fled the scene
On 11.08.2021, acting on secret information, the accused was
apprehended by SI Rahul near Gate No. 13 of Ujjain Mahakal Temple,
Madhya Pradesh, and brought to Delhi on transit remand. Pursuant to his
disclosure statement, a vegetable cutting knife, allegedly used in the offence,
was recovered from beneath a stone near a garbage container at Bhajanpura
Bus Stand.
3. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The
complainant testified as PW-1. She has deposed on the lines of her statement
made during investigation, and also identified him. The brother of the
complainant Gaurav, deposed as PW-2. He handed over two photographs of
the accused to police and also provided the complainant's bloodstained
clothes to the investigating officer. He identified both the accused and the
clothing items in court. PW-4/Dr. Ankita Gupta is the medical witness, who
proved the MLC of complainant as well. PW5-Sunil Saini is the owner of
the CCTV Camera, he testified to handing over the CCTV footage of the
incident. PW6 is HC Harsh who found the injured while patrolling near the
area, the rest of the witnesses were formal who deposed as to various aspects
of investigation.
On the other hand, statement of the appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all evidence and claimed that he was
falsely implicated.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the injury sustained by
the complainant was simple in nature, and the weapon used was an ordinary
kitchen knife. As per prosecution case, only one injury was inflicted on the
complainant's neck. The appellant has already remained in custody for
approximately three years. It is submitted that there are contradictions in the
prosecution evidence, particularly regarding the preparation of the site plan
and the date of seizure of the DVR, which cast reasonable doubt. It is further
submitted that the appellant is a young man and the sole breadwinner of his
family.
5. The Trial Court found that the testimony of PW1 is consistent and
trustworthy, and she had duly identified the appellant as the assailant. Even
otherwise, the appellant was already known to her. The CCTV footage also
lends support to her testimony and shows the appellant committing the
offence as it captured the entire incident of him inflicting injury upon the
complainant.
6. The medical evidence is consistent with the prosecution case. The
injury was opined to be simple in nature, the knife used is a kitchen knife,
identified as a sharp object, which was used to threaten and instill fear in the
complainant. As per the MLC of the complainant, a laceration on her neck,
measuring 8x1cm , was recorded. Even the FSL report corroborates that she
received a sharp injury on her neck and her clothes were stained with her
own blood. The complainant remained hospitalised due to this injury for
around 7 days.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from
the appellant, who has been produced by Jail Warden-Anil through V.C.
from Central Jail No. 13, Mandoli, New Delhi, states that the appellant,
being fully aware of the consequences, does not wish to challenge his
conviction under the aforesaid section; however, he prays that the sentence
awarded to him be modified to the period already undergone by him, which
is about two years and nine months.
Even otherwise, this Court, based on the material produced and
keeping in mind that the appellant stood duly identified by PW1, and the
injury sustained by the complainant were inflicted by none other than the
appellant, concurs with the findings of the Trial Court and finds that no
grounds to interfere with the same are made out. Consequently, the
conviction of appellant is upheld qua the offence under Section 308 IPC.
8. As per the nominal roll dated 15.01.2025, the appellant had
undergone 2 years, 1 month, and 8 days of incarceration, along with earning
remission of 1 month, and 7 days. The appellant has paid the fine vide
receipt dated 07.08.2025 which is handed in court and taken on record. The
appellant has exhibited satisfactory jail conduct where he is reportedly
working as "Jail Sahayak". He is stated to have one prior involvement under
section 408 IPC in which he is facing trial as per the status report, handed
over in court and taken on record. He is the sole bread earner and has
responsibility of wife and children of sister.
9. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the ends of
justice will be served if the appellant's sentence is modified to the period
already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. The appellant is directed to be
released forthwith unless required in any other case.
10. The present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in the above
terms. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.
11. A copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court as well as to
the concerned Jail Superintendent, for information and necessary
compliance.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 14, 2025
Ga/Dh
(corrected & released on 18.08.2025)
