[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ajay @ Shantu vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 16 March, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of reserving: 05th February, 2026
Date of Decision: 16th March, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 811/2003
AJAY @ SHANTU .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vineet Jain & Ms. Richa Babbar,
Advs. with Appellant-in-person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
State with SI Ajay Kumar, PS Ashok
Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. A daredevil attack was carried out by the Appellant and his associates
on a law enforcer, primarily enraged by the acts during one law enforcement
exercise by the victim HC Suresh Kumar and other policemen. It so
happened that on 06.04.2002, while on duty HC Suresh Kumar and police
team spotted a car bearing registration no. DL-2CL-6509 and intercepted it
for checking. In this process, the tyres of the car were to be deflated. It was
HC Suresh Kumar who had fired a gun shot to deflate the tyres. In that
exercise one of the persons namely Rakesh @ Rahul was overpowered by
the police team, whereas Appellant i.e. Ajay @ Shantu allegedly managed to
escape from the scene.
2. The incident, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, took
place on 08.04.2002 while HC Suresh Kumar was returning home after
finishing his duty and the Appellant along with his unknown associates,
travelling in RTV Bus accosted the victim HC Suresh Kumar, who was
travelling on two wheeler scooter near Culvert J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi
at about 12:30 AM.
3. The Appellant and two of his associates, who could not be arrested,
attacked HC Suresh Kumar with fists and kicks, whereas Appellant herein
took out a knife and stabbed HC Suresh Kumar in his abdomen and left
thigh while uttering as to how he had mustered the courage to fire a gun shot
on car no. DL-2CL-6509, and in this process, he gave his name Shantu too.
4. The Appellant and his associates also robbed the purse, driving
license, cell phone etc from the victim and thereafter, ran away from the
spot. Victim somehow landed at the Wazirpur Police Post which was nearby
and based upon his statement an FIR was registered under Section
307/394/397/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
5. The investigations led to be apprehension of the Appellant herein
although the recovery of the robbed items could not be affected. However,
the Appellant was identified by the victim during Test Identification Parade
(TIP) conducted, the Appellant was identified by the victim. Chargesheet
was filed against the Appellant/accused under Section 307/392/394/397/34
IPC.
6. Against the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the Appellant
pleaded not guilty to the charge framed under Section 307/392/394 & 397
IPC, post committal by the Magistrate.
7. The case of the prosecution ultimately culminated into the impugned
judgment after the trial in which 12 witnesses were examined. His statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he was given an
opportunity to explain the evidence/circumstances. He claimed therein that
he has been falsely implicated in order solve the unsolved cases by the
victim / HC Suresh Kumar. The Appellant was sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC and was to further undergo RI
of 09 months in default payment of fine. He was to further sentenced to
undergo RI for 03 years and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as fine for the
offence under Section 392 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he had to
suffer RI for a period of 09 months. Under Section 394 IPC the Appellant
was sentenced to undergo RI for 04 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- as
fine in default of which he was to undergo RI for 09 months and finally to
under Section 397 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 07
years.
8. While assailing the impugned judgment it is submitted that the
Appellant has been falsely implicated by the police for the reasons best
known to them. It is submitted that certain aspects of the case have been
ignored by the learned Trial Court, for instance that the victim chose to go to
the police post instead of going to the hospital, whereas he was severely
injured having stab injuries in his abdomen and thigh. He being a policeman,
was fully aware of the system and was expected to, but did not call on 100
number to the Police Control Room ('PCR') nor did he think it fit to inform
his family, residing not far from the place of the incident. It is asserted on
behalf of the Appellant that how the Appellant can be named in the rukka
when he was not arrested from the spot and when the victim was not aware
of his name. All these go on to show that it is a false and fabricated case
which the Appellant has orchestrated out of vengeance as the Appellant was
discharged in a case a day prior to 6th April which did not go down well with
the police department and that is how he has been framed in this false case.
9. It is also submitted that the victim has not given any description
about the assailants like height, facial description, physique, colour, age
etc. and the victim has clearly admitted this fact in the cross-examination
together with the fact that the Appellant was not known to him prior to the
date of incident. In such circumstances it is submitted that the TIP in
which the Appellant was identified was improper.
10. The learned APP, on the other hand, stood by the impugned judgment
and submitted that there is a clear cut involvement of the Appellant, which
can be inferred from the fact that he has been identified in the TIP and that
there is no reason with the victim to falsely implicate him inasmuch as the
reason put forth is vague and without reasons, having no legs to stand upon.
11. As regards the name of the Appellant therein the rukka, it is submitted
that while assaulting the victim Appellant himself threw up rather boasted
that his name as Shantu. The explanation with regard to the name Ajay @
Shantu in the rukka has come in the cross-examination of PW-1 HC Suresh
Kumar:-
"Accused Ajay was not known to me prior to the date of
incident. While stabbing me he had told his name also saying
that he was known as Shantu. He had not given his name as
Ajay to me. On the previous day accused Rahul had given the
name of this accused as Ajay @ Shantu in his disclosure
statement".
12. Two factors are heavily loaded against the Appellant, the first that
he was identified in the Test Identification Parade as also in the Court.
There is no proper answer with the Appellant on this aspect. The TIP was
conducted by a judicial officer and there is no cross-examination to point
out any impropriety in the TIP proceedings. Thus there appears no reason
to disbelieve the TIP proceedings and identification of the Appellant.
13. The victim happens to be injured also and the injuries were serious
inasmuch as one stab in was in abdominal region and the other was on the
left thigh apart from the fact that the victim was assaulted with the fist and
kick blows too. Notwithstanding the assertion on behalf of the Appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in this case, no reason or motive has
been put forth for such false implication except a feeble argument that the
Appellant was discharged a day prior to 06.04.2002 and in order to frame
him, he has been implicated in this case. However, no details given, no
evidence has been brought either. The false implication could have been
in any other manner, if at all it was to be there why the victim would
inflict injuries of his person that too of such a nature, if the contention of
the Appellant is believed to be true.
14. The doctor has opined about injuries as simple, but then the
description of the injuries reveal and go hand in hand with the kind of
assault described by the victim. The doctor has described the injuries as
follows:
i. 2 cm long incised wound which was 10 cm from midline in
left hypogastrium with sharp margins, slightly everted edges
and spindle in shape. On probing, I noted that it reached 1
cm deep and on finger exploration it revealed intact muscle
layer.
ii. Lower incisors were found to be mobile.
iii. There was an abrasion on right cheek with dimension of 4
cm x 2 cm.
iv. There was contusion on the inner side of lower lip with
dimension of 1 cm x 1 cm.
v. There was a clean lacerated wound on left side with the
dimension of 1 cm.
This indicates the use of sharp edged weapon, most likely which
also goes along with the details of the assault.
15. The testimony of the injured witness is to be given additional
weightage. A reference can be made to the judgments in State of U.P. vs
Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324, where the Supreme Court observed
that the testimony of an injured witness has to be accorded a special status
in law and should be relied on unless there are strong grounds for its
rejection.
16. In Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259
echoing similar sentiments, the Supreme Court observed that an injured
witness is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) and to falsely implicate
someone else. Para 28 of the judgment reads thus:-
"28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a
witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has
been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the
occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of
such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a
witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the
scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in
order to falsely implicate someone. "Convicting evidence is required
to discredit an injured witness."
17. The injuries, that too of this nature completely rules out any sort of
false implication. There may be a case where the injuries were caused by
somebody else and someone else has been named but then it could not be
pointed out that the Appellant was not involved in the offence. There was
no reason with the victim to falsely implicate the Appellant. This gives
credence to the prosecution's case and in the process weakens the case of
the Appellant.
18. A contention has been raised that there was a motive to implicate
the Appellant inasmuch as the Appellant had allegedly slipped away from
the hands of the police on 06.04.2002 when the tyres of vehicle No. DL-
2CL-6509 were deflated by firing a gunshot and one Rakesh @ Rahul
was overpowered by the police from the said car. It is, thus, submitted
that police had a motive to falsely implicate the Appellant. Even if it is
presumed to be correct, the police could have otherwise arrested the
Appellant as he had run away from the spot on 06.04.2002, where was the
occasion with the victim to suffer the kind of injuries he had suffered. The
utterances of the Appellant, while assaulting the victim are indicative of
the fact that he was very enraged by the act of the police in way-laying
him and his associate by deflating tyre of the vehicle by a gun shot. Albeit
he had managed to make his escape good. But he nursed this injury to his
ego, which led to this assault on the victim on 08.04.2002.
19. In his testimony the victim has categorically stated that while
assaulting him, certain utterances were made which indicated that the
Appellant was very angry and took it as personal affront to the firing
carried out by HC Suresh Kumar, the victim herein:-
"Those boys uttered that I was firing shots on vagabond and they
started belabouring me with fist and kick blows. Accused present
before the Court was one of those boys. Accused Ajay @ Shantu
uttered that I had fired too many shots on vagabonds and one of his
associate has been arrested by me."
20. So there was a reason with the Appellant to assault the victim HC
Suresh Kumar. The testimony of the victim has gained strength and sheen
from his injuries which are in tandem with the description of the assault on
the victim. Learned Trial Court has noted about the credentials of the PW-1
HC Suresh Kumar and his demeanour too and found it aboveboard.
21. Primarily, it is the intention and/or the knowledge that an act done in
a peculiar set of facts and circumstances may have the potential to cause
death, is what is of vital importance. Intention or knowledge is something
which is abstract but then the same can be inferred with the help of the acts,
actions, inactions, utterances, gesture and a combination of all or anything
of the nature such as use of weapons, body part which was attacked, single
or multiple blows, manner of assault, etc.
The 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."
Reference in this context can be made to the judgment in Vasant
Virthu Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bom).
In case Parvinder @ Moti v. State, 2015 VII AD (DELHI) 169,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"33. "Intention", as per Cross and Jones in Introduction to
Criminal Law (11th Ed.), is not defined in any statute and its
meaning must therefore be derived from judicial decisions. They
observe, "It is now clear from the House of Lords decisions
in Moloney ([1985] 1 All ER 1025 HL) and Hancock and Shankland
([1986] 1 All ER 641 HL) that foresight of probability, or even of
certainty, is not intention in a legal sense nor the equivalent of it."
They then refer to Court of Appeals decision
in Nedrick ([1986] 3 All ER 1, CA), where it was stated that
"foresight of a consequence as "for all practical purposes
inevitable" could give rise to an irresistible inference of
intention (as opposed, in other words, to being intention
itself)." They conclude that "the irresistible inference
mentioned in Nedrick (supra) is likely to mean in practice that
foresight of inevitability, at least, will be equated with
intention in the minds of a jury". They however, cautioned
"In some offences, the inference of intention may not be
drawn where the jury [or the Court] are not satisfied that the
prohibited consequence was the accused's aim or purpose."
34. Decisions of the Indian Courts are more illustrative and
delineate the distinction between "intention" and "knowledge" in
significantly finite and articulate manner. The Supreme Court
in Kesar Singh versus State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753,
concluded to draw the distinction as, "30. It can thus be seen that
the "knowledge" as contrasted with "intention" signifies a state of
mental realisation with the bare state of conscious awareness of
certain facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive. On
the other hand, "intention" is a conscious state in which mental
faculties are aroused into activity and summoned into action for the
purpose of achieving a conceived end. It means shaping of one's
conduct so as to bring about a certain event. Therefore in the case of
"intention" mental faculties are projected in a set direction.
Intention need not necessarily involve premeditation. Whether there
is such an intention or not is a question of fact."
The said judgment quotes the following portion from Kenny
in Outlines of Criminal Law (17th Edn. at P.31) as:-
"Intention: To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a
desired objective; the noun 'intention' in the present connection is
used to denote the state of mind of a man who not only foresees
but also desires the possible consequences of his conduct. Thus if
one man throws another from a high tower orcuts off his head it
would seem plain that he both foresees the victim's death and also
desires it: the desire and the foresight will also be the same if a
person knowingly leaves a helpless invalid or infant without
nourishment or other necessary support until death supervenes. It
will be noted that there cannot be intention unless there is also
foresight, since a man must decide to his own satisfaction, and
accordingly must foresee, that to which his express purpose is
directed. Again, a man cannot intend to do a thing unless he
desires to do it. It may well be a thing that he dislikes doing, but
he dislikes still more the consequences of his not doing it. That is
to say he desires the lesser of two evils, and therefore has made up
his mind to bring about that one."
Earlier in Jai Prakash vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1991) 2 SCC 32, it was
elucidated that knowledge is bare awareness and not something as
intention, for the latter requires something more than a mere foresight
of the consequences namely, the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve
a particular end."
22. Intention, which the most important aspect of a case under Section
307 IPC, has been inferred from the acts, utterances and attending
circumstances by the learned Trial Court and conclusion drawn is obvious.
Weapon of offence, though not recovered, and body part aimed reveal the
intention clearly. Knife is a deadly weapon as was observed in State of
Maharasthra vs Vinayak Tukaram Utekar (1997) 2 Crimes 615 (Bom).
The use of knife has been stated by victim and stands substantiated and
corroborated by the medical evidence. As such, there is no reason to not act
upon or disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 HC Suresh Kumar, which has
brought the requisite evidence to establish the case of the prosecution.
23. In these circumstances, there appears no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment, as such, the judgment of conviction is upheld.
24. While touching the aspect of the sentence, it is pointed out by
learned counsel for the Appellant that Appellant has otherwise clean
antecedents except this case and possibly one more case, which were there
about 23 years ago. During these 23 years lot of water has flown and the
Appellant is now married and have kids apart from the responsibility of
parents. Additionally, he has completed nearly 05 years in custody during
the period of trial and post-conviction. It is, thus, submitted that the
Appellant can be considered for lighter sentence especially when there is
no minimum sentence prescribed qua any of the offences for which he has
been convicted and sentenced.
25. Learned Prosecutor, on the other hand, stated that the Appellant was
involved in a case prior to the instant case although no further involvement
is there on record but his behavior was not found satisfactory during his jail
term. He had misbehaved with the jail staff due to which his mulakat was
stopped for two weeks. This indicates that the Appellant is a hot headed
person and does not refrain from assaulting even the police man, who was
doing his duty. Such a person does not deserve any leniency.
26. Family responsibilities, grown up children, time lapse, ordeal of
facing a criminal trial, suffering conviction, spending substantial time in
custody and thus, completing the substantial sentence, weigh on one hand
in favour of the Appellant as mitigating circumstances. However, on the
other hand, the nature of offence, the victim involved, the genesis of the
offence, all of which reflect about the personality of the Appellant being
very aggressive and desperate and that in turn weighs down the element of
sympathy. His post conviction conduct in prison too was not satisfactory as
reported by the Prison Authority in the Nominal Roll. This takes away the
element of compassionate consideration totally. Apart from that the
Appellant had atleast one more case, which too is a reflection of his
desperation and sort of non-conformist attitude. The present case was not
an exception or an aberration. Had it been so that the present case was an
isolated incident in which the Appellant got embroiled due to unusual
circumstances, then, there could have been a reason and possibility to give
indulgence to the Appellant qua the aspect of sentence. But that being not
so, therefore, the scale of consideration is against the Appellant qua
sentence too. As such, there is no reason to interfere in respect of the
sentence awarded to the Appellant.
27. Resultantly, both conviction and sentence are maintained. Appeal is
accordingly dismissed. Appellant to surrender forthwith.
28. Copy of the judgment be transmitted to the learned Trial Court and
the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary
compliance.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J
MARCH 16, 2026/hk/akc/tng
