[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Nazim & Anr vs The State ( Govt Nct Of Delhi) on 23 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 18.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 583/2018
NAZIM & ANR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Dudeja, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Mohd. Ayyoob, P.S. Jafrabad
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.), the 1stAccused (A1) and
the 2nd Accused (A2) in SC No. 44828/2015 on the file of the
District & Sessions Judge, North East District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi, assail the judgment dated 09.04.2018 and the order
on sentence dated 16.04.2018 as per which both A1 and A2 have
been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under
Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 30.05.2010 at about
9.00 PM, near Gali No. 3, Chauhan Bangar, A1 and A2, along with
A3, assaulted PW1 and inflicted grievous injuries upon him with a
knife and a razor. Accordingly, as per the charge sheet/final report,
the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act,
1959.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A PCR Call vide DD No
17A, received on 10.03.2015 at 09.11 PM, Crime No. 134/2010,
Jafrabad Police Station, i.e., Exhibit PW2/B FIR was registered by
PW3, Constable. PW10, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) was
entrusted with the investigation of the case. PW10 conducted
investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed
the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the offences
punishable under the aforementioned sections.
4. The copies of the prosecution records were furnished to
him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both
sides, the trial court, vide order dated 12.07.2012, framed a charge
under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and A1 was additionally
charged with the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms
Act, 1959, which was read over and explained to the accused
persons to which they pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 15 were
examined and Exhibits PW2/A-B, PW4/A-K, PW6/A-D, PW7/A-
F, PW9/A-B, PW10/C-E, PW8/DA, PW13/A, PW15/A-B,
PW13/A and PW14/A-D were marked in support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all
those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They claimed
that they have been falsely implicated.
7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232
Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance
of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings,
unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted
in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K.
vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker
2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of
Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.
8. DW1 was examined on behalf of the accused persons.
No documentary evidence was adduced in support of the defence
case.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence, and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 09.04.2018, held A1 and A2 guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC
and acquitted A3 of the charges. Vide order on sentence dated
16.04.2018, A1 and A2 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹
10,000 each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC. Aggrieved, A1 and A2 have preferred the
appeal.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants/A1 and A2 that PW1, the injured, in his testimony,
deposed that only two persons, namely, A1 and A3, were armed
with weapons, and that A2 merely caught hold of him from
behind. It was further submitted that although PW1 was discharged
from the hospital on 01.06.2010 and assisted PW10, the
Investigating Officer, in preparing the site plan of the place of
occurrence on 03.06.2010, he produced his blood stained pant and
slippers only on 05.06.2010. This delay, according to the learned
counsel, casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.
10.1. It was further submitted that no blood samples were
collected from the place of occurrence, as admitted by PW10, the
Investigating Officer, in his testimony. The learned counsel for the
appellants also contended that the alleged recovery of the weapons
is doubtful and unreliable, inasmuch as the same was effected from
a public place. Reliance was further placed on the FSL report to
contend that the bloodstains detected on the recovered razor
(ustra) did not match the blood group of PW1 and, therefore, the
said weapon cannot be said to have been used in causing the
alleged injuries.
11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecution
submitted thatPW1 sustained five incised wounds measuring
between 3 cm to 10 cm and three incised wounds measuring
between 6 cm to 12 cm, all inflicted on vital parts of the body by a
sharp-edged weapon. PW 11, doctor has categorically opined that
any one of the injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. Due to the grievous injuries sustained, PW1
was referred to Neuro Surgery and General Surgery for further
management, which substantiates the life-threatening nature of the
assault.
11.1. As far the delay in recording the statement of PW1 is
concerned, it was submitted that as per PW15/A MLC, the doctor
declared the injured unfit for statement, and therefore, the FIR was
registered on the basis of the DD entry and MLC when PW1
became fit for giving the statement, the same was recorded. The
delay thus stands satisfactorily explained. It was further contended
that the testimony of PW1, an injured witness carries greater
evidentiary value and conviction can be sustained on such sole
testimony if found reliable and trustworthy.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgement calling for an interference by this court.
14. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary
evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case.PW1,
when examined before the trial court on 20.03.2013, deposed that
he was engaged in masonry work along with his father and that
though he does not recollect the exact month or year of the
incident, it was about three years before his examination on the
30th day of a month. A1, A2, A3 are residents of a nearby lane
adjoining his house. On the date of the incident at about 8:30 P.M.,
while passing through Gali No. 3, he saw all three accused persons
present there. The accused persons who appeared to be under the
influence of liquor, called him and abused him. A2 caught him
from behind by his neck, while the other two attacked him with a
knife and a razor which they were holding. Due to the assault, he
fell on the ground, at which time the accused persons fled from the
spot. Someone informed the police from his mobile phone. The
police arrived and took him to the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital.
PW1 further deposed that he became unconscious due to the
severity of the injuries sustained and his statement was recorded by
the police in the hospital. He was an inpatient for about 8 to 10
days. After discharge, he continued to experience pain and
thereafter obtained further treatment from another hospital, i.e.,
Prima Super Speciality Hospital, where he was admitted for about
3 to 4 days. PW1 identified Ex. P1 knife and Ex. P2 green-handle
razor used by A1 and A2 respectively for the assault. PW1 was
unable to identify the third weapon, namely, a black-handle razor.
At this juncture, the prosecutor is seen to have requested the
permission of the Court to "cross examine" the witness on the
ground that the latter had deviated from his previous statement
with regard to the role of the accused persons and the weapons
involved. The request was allowed.
14.1. On further examination by the prosecutor, PW1
deposed that when the accused persons abused him he had
objected to the said conduct. He had seen weapons in the
possession of only two of the accused persons. However, all the
three accused had assaulted him together by using the weapons. He
further deposed that A3 had been holding Ex. P2 razor at the time
of the assault. He denied that A2 was also carrying a razor.
According to him, A2 had only caught hold of him while the other
accused caused injuries. According to PW1, even after the incident
in question, the accused persons assaulted him again after about
four months, and thereafter once more about six months after the
second assault. On both the subsequent occasions, he was taken by
his father in an auto rickshaw to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital for
treatment.
14.2. PW1 admitted that he is an accused in about 05 or 06
criminal cases, one of the cases alleging commission of offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC.
15. PW4, Head Constable, PS Nand Nagri, deposed that on
01.06.2010, he joined the investigation of the case along with
PW10 and they reached the area of Brahmpuri Puliya where, they
received secret information that A1, was present near Gali No. 3,
Chauhan Bangar. They apprehended A1 at about 6:15 p.m. PW4
correctly identified A1 present in Court. PW4 further deposed that
the accused made Ext. PW4/C disclosure statement and as led by
A1 and pointed out by A1, Ext. P1 knife was seized as per Ext.
PW4/E seizure memo. Ext. PW4/D is the sketch of the knife. On
03.06.2010 he again joined the investigation with PW10. On
receiving secret information, they apprehended A2 from Gali No.
3, Chauhan Bangar. PW4 correctly identified A2 in Court. Based
on Ext. PW4/H disclosure statement of A2 and as led by A2, Ext.
P2 razor was seized from near Sulabh Sauchalaya as per Ext.
PW/K seizure memo from near DDA Park, close to Jag Parvesh
Hospital. He prepared Ext. PW4/I sketch of the razor. PW4
identified Ext. P1 knife and Ext. P2 razor, as the weapons
recovered at the instance of A1 and A2, respectively.
15.1. PW4 in his cross examination deposed that the place of
recovery of the razor was a deserted place and that there was a
park nearby. Public used to visit the park for walking and the
Sulabh Sauchalaya was also being used by the public. At the time
of recovery, only one or two persons were present in the park near
the place of recovery, but none agreed to join the investigation.
16. PW5, Sub-Inspector deposed that on 30.05.2010 he was
posted in PCR, North East Zone and was on duty in Baker 51
stationed at Ghonda Chowk. At about 9.10 pm, information was
received regarding a fight at Gali No. 3, Chauhan Bangar Pulia. He
immediately reached the spot in the PCR vehicle and found PW1
with bleeding injuries. PW1 was taken to GTB Hospital and
admitted.
17. PW10, the Investigating Officer deposed that that on
30.05.2010 he was posted as ASI at Jafrabad Police Station. When
DD No. 17A regarding a quarrel was received, he along with PW3
reached Gali No. 3, Chauhan Bangar and learnt that the injured
had already been removed to GTB Hospital by PCR. Finding no
eyewitness at the spot, he went to the hospital, collected the MLC
of the injured, who was then unfit for giving a statement. On the
basis of the MLC disclosing serious injuries on vital parts, he
registered the crime, that is, Ext. 2/B FIR under Section 307 IPC.
On 01.06.2010, after PW1 was declared fit for statement, he
recorded the former's statement. Later that day, while he along
with PW4 was on patrol duty, he received secret information about
the presence of A1 near Gali No.3, Chauhan Bangar. He proceeded
to the said place and arrested A1. PW10 identified A1 before the
court. A1, on being interrogated, disclosed the involvement of the
co-accused. On the basis Ext.PW4/C disclosure statement of A1
and as led by A1 and pointed by A1, a knife (churi) was recovered
from a nala.
17.1 PW10 further deposed that, on 03.06.2010, acting on
secret information, A2 was apprehended who was also identified in
Court. A2 made Ext. PW10/C disclosure which led to the recovery
of a blood stained razor without blade from near Sulabh
Sauchalaya near Jag Pravesh hospital. He prepared Ext. PW4/J
sketch of the razor, seized and sealed it. During further
investigation, PW1 handed over his blood stained jeans and
slippers, which were sealed and seized.
17.2 In the cross examination, PW10 admitted that the
recovery of the knife was effected from a residential area.
According to PW10, A1 himself had removed/ dug out the earth
and took the knife out, which was not wrapped in any material
paper or cloth. PW10 further deposed that the razor was recovered
from a place adjacent to which residential houses were situated.
The razor was found concealed under a brick and in open
condition. During the recovery proceedings, no one else except the
police officials and the accused were present.
18. PW11, CMO GTB Hospital, deposed that on 30.05.2010
at about 10.00 pm, PW1 was brought to the emergency of GTB
Hospital by PW5 with alleged history of assault. PW1 was
medically examined by Dr. Sonal Arora, SR, Department of
Casualty. PW1 was conscious but disoriented. Multiple incised
wounds were noted on the scalp, chest, abdomen and back,
including three superficial incised wounds on the back measuring
between 6 cm and 12 cm. After initial treatment, the patient was
referred to Surgery and Neuro Surgery. The injuries were caused
by a sharp weapon. According to PW11, the injuries inflicted
could have caused death. PW11 in his cross examination deposed
that although he was present at the time of examination of PW1, he
had not personally examined PW1 but could identify the
handwriting of Dr. Arora.
19. PW13, Director and Head, Department of Surgery, Fortis
Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, produced the original treatment
papers of PW1. PW13 deposed that the patient had been admitted
in the hospital on 11.06.2010 with history of assault on
30.05.2010. Primary treatment was given at GTB Hospital and he
was discharged from the said hospital on 01.06.2010. The patient
came to Primus hospital on 11.06.2010 with complaints of pain in
chest and difficulty in breathing. On examination, he was found
conscious, oriented and the vitals were stable. He had healed stitch
lines on the chest and scalp region, which did not require any
surgical intervention. He was given conservative management and
discharged from the hospital on 14.06.2010. The treatment papers,
discharge summary, etc. of PW1 has been marked as PW13/A.
PW13 also deposed that the treatment papers are in the
handwriting of Dr. Arun, Dr. Mrunal and Dr. Yogesh Gautam,
whose handwriting and signatures, he is acquainted with.
20. PW15, Professor, Department of Surgery, UCMS, GTB
Hospital, Delhi, produced MLC dated 30.05.2010 of PW1, which
has been marked as PW15/A. PW15 deposed that Dr. Manish
Srivastava, who prepared exhibit PW15/A, had left the services of
the hospital and that his whereabouts are presently not known. He
is acquainted the handwriting and signature of Dr. Manish
Srivastava. PW15 further deposed that the nature of injury has
been recorded as simple in exhibit PW15/B MLC by Dr. Manish
Srivastava on 08.06.2010.
21. The appellants/A1 and A2 have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 307 and read with Section 34
IPC. To prove an offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution
must establish that the act was done with such intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death has been
caused, the act would amount to murder. The intention or the
knowledge of the accused has to be gathered from the nature of the
weapon used, the manner of its use, the part of the body aimed at
and the surrounding circumstances.
22. In the case on hand, the prosecution case rests primarily
on the testimony of PW1, the injured witness. It is well settled that
the testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value
and a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of an injured
witness, provided the same inspires confidence and is found to be
trustworthy. Now the question is whether the testimony of PW1
coupled with the medical evidence is sufficient to prove the
offence of attempt to commit murder by A1 and A2.
23. It is true that evidence regarding recovery of the knife
and the razor at the instance of A1 and A2 is not quite satisfactory.
The case of recovery of weapon is spoken to by the police officials
only. No reasons have been given as to why independent witnesses
were not included in the exercise. It is true that merely because
there are no independent witnesses to support the case of recovery,
the same is no ground to reject the prosecution case. But here there
is no case for the Investigating Officer that witnesses were not
present or available. Therefore, in such circumstances the said
independent witnesses could have also been included while the
recovery is alleged to have been effected.
24. Be that as it may, even if evidence regarding the recovery
of weapons is ignored, that would also not be a ground to reject the
prosecution case because recovery of weapon used in the
commission of the offence is not sine qua non for convicting the
accused. (See Rakesh v. State of U.P., 2021 KHC 6299 : (2021)
7 SCC 188). In the case on hand, this is especially so, because A1
and A2 admit that PW1 did in fact sustain injuries. This aspect is
clear from the suggestions put to PW1 while he was cross-
examined, the relevant portion of which reads thus:- "...........It is
wrong that accused had not caused any assault or injury upon me.
It is wrong that in order to implicate them falsely, I myself caused
me injuries with the help of some of my friend............"
25. Therefore the fact that injuries had been caused to PW1 is
more or less admitted by A1 and A2. The testimony of PW1
proves that it was A1 and A2 who had caused those injuries. No
contradictions have been proved as per the procedure contemplated
under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The details of the injuries
are seen recorded Ext. PW15/A MLC dated 30.05.2010 at 10:00
PM. The injuries are:-
(i) About 10 cm long incised wound present on the left
side of scalp.
(ii) About 5.6 cm long incised wound present on the left
side of scalp.
(iii) About 3 to 3.5 cm long incised wound present on the
right side of scalp.
(iv) About 3 cm long incised wound present on the left side
of chest.
(v) About 3 to 3.5 cm long incised wound present on the
left side of abdomen.
(vi) 3 superficial incised wounds present on back ranging in
size from 6 cm to 12 cm in length.
26. PW11, who was present when PW1 was examined by
Dr. Sonal Arora deposed in his chief-examination that any of the
aforesaid injuries inflicted could have caused death. This aspect is
not seen cross examined on behalf of A1 and A2. It is true that
PW15 deposed that in Ext. PW15/A MLC Dr. Manish Srivastava
on 08.06.2010 has recorded that "as per surgical records the nature
of the injury is simple". But the injuries seen recorded in Ext.
PW15/A do not appear simple which is spoken to by PW11 who
was present when PW1 was examined. The testimony PW11 has
neither been challenged nor discredited. Looking at the dimensions
of the injury as well as the part of the body where it was inflicted,
reveals the intention of the accused persons. Further, the nature of
injury is not determinative of the offence under Section 307 IPC
when the act is accompanied by a clear intention or knowledge to
cause death. More than 5 incised injuries are seen to have been
caused on the scalp, chest and abdomen. This coupled with the
testimony of PW11, establishes the ingredients of the offence
under section 307 IPC. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this court.
27. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
28. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 23, 2026/ABP
