[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Dinesh Murmu vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi on 16 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of reserving: 10th April, 2026
Date of Decision: 16th April, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 973/2013
DINESH MURMU .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Ms. G.
Priyadharshni & Mr. Satyam Pathak,
Advs.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Adv.
(DHCLSC).
versus
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the
State with SI Vijay Dahiya PS Model
Town and SI Akanksha PS Parliament
Street.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. A futile attempt to stage a Dharna/sit-in protesting the corruption in
Railways, landed the Appellant in a mess where not only a case under
Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟) was registered against him but
he was ultimately held guilty and convicted too.
2. Precisely, the facts against the backdrop of which the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 11.04.2013 and sentence dated 15.04.2013
emerged via FIR No. 21/2012, under Section 307 IPC, traversing through
the trial reveals that the Appellant, who happened to be a Railway employee,
was aggrieved by the so called rampant corruption in Railways and had
sought permission to stage a sit-in. He, in fact, had even given a notice to the
Government about his proposed hunger strike/Anshan at Ramlila Maidan
from 05.02.2012, but instead of granting the permission, he was allegedly
falsely implicated in this case.
3. On the fateful day, i.e. on 15.02.2012 at about 1:45 PM, the victim-
Bhagwan Singh was attacked by the Appellant with a "Farsa". However, the
assault was in full public glare at the "In Gate" of Rail Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi, where apart from a number of public persons, some security
personnels were also deployed and one of them ASI Dharm Dev Ojha,
(PW-3) of the RPSF (Railway Protection Special Force) caught hold of the
Appellant, disarmed him and ultimately, handed him over to the police. The
statement made by Dharm Dev Ojha (Ex. PW-3/A) led to the registration of
FIR under Section 307 IPC. The victim Bhagwan Singh remained
unconscious for two days on account of the injuries sustained by him in the
occipital region.
4. The police officials concluded the investigation by doing the needful
such as taking the victim to the RML Hospital, preparation of the sketch of
the weapon of offence i.e. Farsa (Ex. PW-3/B), seizure of the same (Ex.
PW-3/B), preparation of site plan (Ex. PW-10/B), arrest of the Appellant
and taking his personal search through Arrest Memo (Ex. PW-3/D) and
Personal Search Memo (Ex. PW-3/E) respectively, recording the statement
of the witnesses. The blood stained shirt of the Appellant was also seized
through Memo (Ex. PW-4/A) on 18.02.2012 and sending the weapon of
offence and shirt to the FSL, obtaining the report thereof and ultimately
filing a charge-sheet.
5. In all, 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, statement of
accused was also recorded and the Appellant himself examined as DW-1
and, thereafter, on conclusion of the trial and arguments, the Appellant was
held guilty through the impugned Judgment under Section 307 IPC.
Incidentally, it is informed by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Appellant has already completed the custodial sentence of 04 years awarded
to him, but has not paid the fine. However, the Appellant has been denied
his retiral benefits and that is why the instant appeal is pressed by the
Appellant.
6. Broadly, learned counsel for the Appellant has challenged the
impugned Judgment on the following counts that despite the presence of
independent public witnesses, there is no public witness to the proceedings,
the so called weapon of offence i.e. "Farsa" has not been examined for the
fingerprints, no blood was found on the Farsa as indicated in the FSL report,
seizure of the blood stained shirt was after two days of the incident and the
evidence on record is full of inconsistencies and discrepancies, which reflect
that it is a false case.
7. It is further submitted that the kind of injury caused is not possible, in
the first place and in any case, if it is presumed that the injury was caused,
then a simple injury, as opined by the Doctor in the MLC (Ex. PW-1/A),
cannot render anybody unconscious for two days. The Doctor who had
opined on the MLC that the victim was unfit for statement has not been
examined, therefore, there is every possibility that the Appellant has been
falsely implicated in this case and this is nothing but a cooked up case
against the Appellant.
8. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the clear
and cogent evidence of the victim and PW-3 apart from other witnesses,
there appears no reason to disbelieve the prosecution‟s case. The contention
which was raised by learned counsel for the Appellant with regard to the
motive, has been countered by learned APP by asserting that the motive is
insignificant in view of the overwhelming evidence against the Appellant
including that of the victim, whose testimony is to be kept at a higher
pedestal.
9. Having considered, the submissions, it appears that the Appellant has
no case. So far as joining independent public witness is concerned, there is
no such requirement of law in the first place and in any case, PW-7 Om
Prakash can be put into the definition of independent public witness, who
was present at the spot and has supported the case of the prosecution,
substantiating and supplementing the testimony of injured Bhagwan Singh,
who has been examined as PW-4 and for that matter, corroboration is there
to the testimony of the victim from more than one quarters i.e. PW-3 ASI
Dharm Dev Ojha and the MLC, which go hand-in-hand with the version of
the victim/prosecution complementing, supplementing and substantiating the
core issue of the case i.e. attempting to commit the murder of victim
Bhagwan Singh by the Appellant.
10. Although, there appears no motive as such as to why this particular
man was attacked in the name of fighting against the corruption.
Nevertheless, motive effaces into insignificance once there are direct ocular
evidence on record. The reference in this context can be made to Chandan
v. The State (Delhi Admin), (2024) 6 SCC 799, wherein it was held as
under:
"The argument of the defence that the prosecution has not been able
to establish any motive on the accused for committing this dastardly
act is in fact true, but since this is a case of eye- witness, the motive
itself is of little relevance. It would be necessary to mention some of
the leading cases on this aspect which are as under:
In Shivaji Genu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55, it
was held that it is a well - settled principle in criminal
jurisprudence that when ocular testimony inspired the
confidence of the court, the prosecution is not required to
establish motive. Mere absence of motive would not impinge on
the testimony of a reliable eye-witness. Motive is an important
factor for consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence but
when there is direct eye witness, motive is not significant"
Further reference in this context can also be made to Bhagirath and
Ors v. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 3431 and Molu v. State of Haryana,
AIR 1996 SC 2499.
11. So far as the fingerprints on the weapon of offence i.e. Farsa is
concerned, there was no occasion with the investigating agency to go for it
in view of the clear and categorical evidence of the use of Farsa, as deposed
by not only the victim Bhagwan Singh, examined as PW-4, but ASI Dharm
Dev Ojha and PW-7 Om Prakash also. Therefore, when there was no doubt
about the complicity of the Appellant and the use of weapon by him, there
was no reason/occasion with the Investigating Agency to go for this exercise
of connecting and examining the fingerprints on the Farsa.
12. Blood stained shirt was seized after two days, which has been
questioned by the learned counsel for the Appellant as to why such a delay
was there. However, the evidence on record explains it inasmuch as the
Appellant was lying unconscious or in a delirium, therefore, it was not
seemingly possible to take off his shirt and hand it over to the Investigating
Agency. As such, this cannot be faulted as a flaw which may dislodge the
case of the prosecution nor can it be taken against the prosecution.
13. Absence of blood stains on the weapon of offence i.e. Farsa has been
put forth as another ground to dismantle the prosecution‟s case by the
Appellant. According to the connected argument that the so called blood
stained shirt of the victim was seized after two days of the incident and if it
was so, then the Farsa also should have blood on its blade or anywhere. Not
even a drop of blood or even a trace of the blood was found on the Farsa,
clouding the prosecution‟s case and in the process putting a question mark
on the recovery of the blood stained shirt of victim Bhagwan Singh.
14. Countering the contention in this context, learned APP has argued
convincingly that it is not mandatory to find the traces of blood on the
weapon of offence for the simple reason that the way Farsa was used from
above to downwards and sidewards motion coupled with the shape and
depth of the incision, in addition to the fact that the upper body part i.e.
occipital region was the targeted body part. The blood, if any, would come
and flow down. The blood on the shirt reflects this aspect. Since the Farsa
was used parallelly or from the up to down, therefore, unless there is a very
deep cut, the traces of blood may not be found on the weapon. In such
circumstances, the contention raised on the behalf of the Appellant to make
the case vulnerable, is not strong enough to dismantle the case of the
prosecution.
15. As regards the fact that the victim Bhagwan Singh was lying
unconscious in the hospital for two days, it is asserted that the doctor, who
declared him „unfit for statement‟ or for that matter „fit for statement‟ has
not been examined. Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be
believed. The MLC having details of the injuries and the endorsement about
the fitness is Ex. PW-1/A and the doctor who had prepared the MLC has
been examined as PW-1, who has proved the MLC as Ex.PW-1/A detailing
the two injuries i.e.:-
i. Incised wound over occipital region left side around 8x2
cm.
ii. Incised wound 4x0.5 cm over middle of neck interior
(front side aspect).
16. He does not say anything about the fitness as a fact, however,
examination of PW-9 Dr. Trilok Chand is there about the nature of injury
being simple as per the endorsement, as can be seen on MLC itself i.e.
Ex.PW-1/A. However, there is no word in the testimony about the victim
being „unfit for statement‟ as opined on 15.02.2012 at 05:00 PM and „unfit
for statement‟ opined again by some medical professional on 15.02.2012
itself, that is, the date of incident, seemingly at around 04:45 PM. The third
endorsement on Ex.PW-1/A dated 18.02.2012 at 10:25 AM, declares the
victim fit for statement. The issue is whether this can be read in evidence or
not. In the absence of any specific evidence or deposition about this, it
should not be read in evidence, but it cannot be ignored either. However,
even if this endorsement is ignored, still the testimony of the victim cannot
be. He has specifically stated about two blows of Farsa given to him near his
head near his left ear and the front portion of the neck. He has categorically
stated that after receiving the blows he fell down, got up but then fell
unconscious while bleeding from the injuries. It is categorically stated by
him that he regained consciousness on 17.02.2012 and found himself in Dr.
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (RML). There appears no reason why he
should not be believed, when the Investigating Officer (IO) examined as
PW-10 too says about this fact.
17. The IO has been examined as PW-10 and has categorically stated that
on the date of incident i.e. 15.02.2012, the doctor had declared the patient
unfit for statement. He has also stated that he recorded the statement of the
victim on 18.02.2012 i.e. a day after when the victim was declared fit for
statement as per the endorsement on the MLC. These testimonies are enough
to explain the delay of two days in seizing the shirt and recording the
statement of the victim on 18.02.2012 and about victim being unfit to make
statement. And for that matter in the MLC Ex. PW-1/A, Dr. Yashwant Singh
Tanwar has made an observation about the gait and speech. The victim was
unable to walk and seemingly was not able to speak though he has found
him oriented. In such circumstances, even if doctor concerned, who has
opined about the fitness of the victim, has not been examined and the
endorsement being there on the MLC, can certainly be referred while
appreciating the testimony of the victim and the statement of IO (PW-10), to
conclude that the victim was not available to make statement being
unconscious or sort of under spell of delirium or shock. As such this
contention also fails to cut through the case of the Prosecution.
18. Testimony of injured witness has to be treated differently while
appreciating the evidence, as that the injury itself speaks even if victim does
not. In this context, reference can be made to the judgements in:-
Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
355, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court expounded on the key principles
that are to be kept in mind while assessing the credibility of an injured
witness, the relevant part has been reproduced hereunder:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated,
the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to
be kept in mind:
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the
occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions
in his deposition.
26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be
believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to
escape and falsely implicate the accused.
26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and
unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be
discarded lightly.
26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of
some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the
evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration
or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but
not the whole evidence.
26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken
into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss
of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
In State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, it was held that the
evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a
stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is
generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared
the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony
of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained
injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his
testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of
an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not
like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a
third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of
the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the
rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein.
19. In the instant case also, there appears no reason to disbelieve the
victim or to express any kind of doubt about his credibility and
trustworthiness, notwithstanding the fact that learned counsel for the
Appellant has contended that the testimony of the victim is not trustworthy.
In the instant case, it is not that the testimony of the victim alone is there,
rather two more eye witnesses to the incident are there, who have narrated
about the incident i.e. PW-7 Om Prakash, who was working with Railway
on deputation and was present at the spot at the time of incident. Reiterating
the incident, as has been deposed by the victim Bhagwan Singh examined as
PW-4, on the similar lines the testimony of PW-3 Dharam Dev Ojha, who
was on duty near the entry gate of the Rail Bhawan on 15.02.2012. It was he
who had neutralized the Appellant and witnessed the incident also. It was
he, who had called the police, which took victim Bhagwan Singh to the
hospital and it was he, whose statement laid the foundation of the present
case i.e. Ex.PW-2/A. This goes hand in hand with the facts of the case
inasmuch as the victim was not found fit for statement and that is the reason
why it is ASI Dharam Dev Ojha, who had stepped into the shoes of the
complainant and lodged the FIR. As such, apart from the testimony of PW-4
Bhagwan Singh, two more witnesses are there i.e. PW-3 and PW-7 who
have supplemented, complemented and substantiated the testimony of the
victim Bhagwan Singh.
20. Corroboration to the case of the prosecution further comes in the form
of MLC Ex.PW-1/A, which cemented the fact that the deposition of the
victim and the other two witnesses PW-3 and PW-7 that victim was given
injuries, as described in the MLC Ex. PW-1/A and deposed by the victim,
witnesses and Dr. Yashwant Singh Tanwar. As such, the MLC, the victim
and PW-3 and PW-7, all are on the same page, so far as the nature of injury,
weapon used and the body part which was targeted by the Appellant are
concerned. The witnesses have held their ground firmly in the cross-
examination and their testimony could not be shaken. Therefore, testimony
on record being credible and stands and stares directly against the Appellant,
unequivocally reflecting about his complicity in the offence.
21. Learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that there
are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses and
has drawn the attention of the Court to the chart forming part of the written
submissions:-
TESTIMONY CONTRADICTION
PW-3 (ASI Dharam Dev Ojha) As per PW-6 (Constable Sonu),
has deposed that he has disarmed the Farsa was in the hands of
the accused meaning thereby the the accused, when PW-6
Farsa had already been taken reached the spot alongwith the
from the accused (kindly refer to Investigating Officer i.e. PW-
page 112-115) 10 (Refer to Page No. 121)
PW-3 (ASI Dharam Dev Ojha) However, as per PW-7 (Om
stated that he has telephoned the Prakash), he stated in his
PCR van and thereafter the Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements
Police Official of PCR has come, that though there were many
and they have taken injured people in the crime spot, it was
Bhagwan Singh to Hospital he who took the victim to the
(Refer to Page No. 112) Hospital. (Refer to Page No.
128)
PW-7 (Om Prakash, the eye Whereas in the cross-
witness)- in Chief-examination examination 04.01.2013, he
on 11.12.2012 said "I found the said, „I saw that accused had
crowd was gathered there and I attacked on the injured in my
saw that one person had presence'.
attacked Bhagwan Singh with (Refer to Page No. 128)
Farsa on his earlobe and the
front portion of the neck, the
crows was already there which
means the incident had already
happened.
(Refer to Page no. 125)
As per PW-3 (ASI Dharam Dev However, as per PW-4
Ojha Complainant), there was (Bhagwan Singh, the injured
only a single blow which causedvictim) there were two blows.
the injury (Refer to page 115) (One each on head near left ear
and the front portion of the
neck) (Refer to Page 116)
According to PW-4 (Bhagwan However, as per FSL Report,
Singh, the injured) he bled no blood stains were found on
profusely after the attack and the weapon (Refer to Page 181)
became unconscious on
15.02.2012 and regained his
consciousness on 17.02.2012
after two days.
According to statement of PW-9 However, PW-4 i.e. the victim
(Dr. Tirlok Chand) who analyzed sad that as a result of injury by
and given the opinion on the sharp weapon on his neck, he
MLC Report, injuries were remained unconscious for
simple in nature. (Refer to Page almost two days. (Kindly refer
131) to Page No. 181)
Further, according to PW-10
(I.O), he has seized blood-
stained shirt only on 18th of
February, after 2 days of the
incident
PW-10 also revealed that It is submitted that the
dimensions of Farsa which is 37 dimension of the weapon
cm in length, 23 cm blade length, reveals that the weapon is a
and width is 7.9 cm. sharp edgy weapon therefore
the finding that there is no
blood found on the weapon
does not inspire confidence and
lacks credence that too when a
bloodstained shirt of the victim
was recovered after two days.
22. No testimony can be given immunity from discrepancies and
inconsistencies inasmuch as human mind and memory have its own
limitations and the narratives gets modified with certain slips here and there
when the event is narrated at the initial stage and later. Time gap, limitations
of memory and capacity of the mind to retain things etc. do play their role in
shaping up the testimony. However, as long as the core and crux of the
deposition remains unalloyed, the testimony remains credible and believable
irrespective of the discrepancies here and there. Reference in this context can
be made to Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC
365:
"25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no
fixed or strait jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence.
The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in
a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be
whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a
ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly
necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly
keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out
in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is
against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and
whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it
unworthy of belief.
II. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the
opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence
given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will
have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial
court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not
be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to
make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only
when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible
with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning
his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the
case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context
here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical
error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the
matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two
witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an
unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not
as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The
witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has
an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one
may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its
image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part
of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and
reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only
recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a
witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an
occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the
spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect
people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.
Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from
person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the
sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short
time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when
interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the
court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination by counsel and
out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of
events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.
The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on
account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the
witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence
witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the
evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction.
Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later
statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to
some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
23. Reference in this context can also be made to Narayan Chetanram
Chaudhary v. state of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457, State of Rajasthan
v. Smt. Kalki & Anr., (1981) 2 SCC 752, Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal
Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 and Raj Kumar
Singh alias raju alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722.
24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, discrepancies
pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant does not hit the core of
the issue nor does it uproot or dislodge the case of the prosecution.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, where there is clear and
categorical evidence about the incident, wherein the Bhagwan Singh was
attacked by the Appellant with Farsa, as has been deposed by victim PW-4
and two more witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-3, therefore, no reason to
question it is there. Their deposition cannot be questioned merely because
they were employees of the Railways and for that matter the Appellant
himself was an employee of the Railways. Incidentally, one of them was not
strictly an employee of Railways being on deputation with Railways.
26. The weapon of offence has been recovered. The Appellant was
arrested at the spot itself, therefore, there is no doubt about the involvement
or identity of the Appellant. The testimony of witnesses and the injuries go
hand in hand in tandem with each other, which brings credibility and
strength to the case mounted by the prosecution.
27. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and
Others, (1988) 4 SCC 551, has discussed as what the Court has to see in
order to bring a case under Section 307 IPC. The relevant portion of the
judgment is as under:-
"7. Under Section 307 IPC what the court has to see is, whether
the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section.
The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is
necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being
established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder".
Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to
accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all
circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue.
The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive
for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the
injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into
consideration to determine the intention."
28. In the case in hand, the kind of weapon used, the body part attacked
and the blow being not single blow rather two blows were given, thus, in
such circumstances no other inference can be drawn about the intention of
the Appellant except that he wanted to kill the victim. Although, there is no
apparent reason or motive to target the victim, even if it is presumed that the
Appellant wanted to sit in protesting the corruption in Railways, nor there
appears any reason or ground as to why the victim was chosen as the target,
whereas the issue, as portrayed by the Appellant, was the large scale
corruption in the Railways. Nevertheless, as discussed hereinbefore too,
motive pales into insignificance in view of the direct and cogent ocular
evidence that too coming from the mouth of the victim and corroborated by
two independent witnesses with further corroboration in the shape of the
medical evidence.
29. Learned counsel for the Appellant has informed that the Appellant has
already completed his custodial sentence, but for the fact that he wanted to
clear his name, therefore, pursued the Appeal. However, in view of the
observations made hereinbefore, the appeal has no substance and, therefore,
stands declined. So far as the sentence is concerned, there appears no ground
to interfere at this stage, as the custodial sentence has already been
completed by the Appellant and it is the fine only about which some
indulgence can be given to the Appellant considering the fact that he has
retired from service, already served the custodial sentence and likely to be in
financial constraints. As such, the period of custodial sentence already
undergone by the Appellant shall be treated as the sentence awarded to him.
The fine part stands waived off.
30. As a result the appeal substantially stands declined and disposed of
accordingly.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J
APRIL 16, 2026/ps
