The prompt lodging of the First Information Report, consistency of witness testimonies, and shared common intention are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Faisal (the appellant), Mohd. Abid @ Kadir and Atif were arrested by the police of PS Seelampur in case FIR No. 474/2008 and sent for trial alleging that on 23.11.2008 at about 09.30 P.M. at shop no. C- 47/6, gali no. 11, Matkewali Gali, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi, they in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Rahisuddin by firing at him in an attempt to murder him. Atif faced trial before Juvenile Justice Board. Mohd.Abid @ Kadir expired during trial and proceedings against him were dropped as abated. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Waheed’s statement (Ex.PW-6/A). MLC of the victim was collected and the injuries were opined as ‘grievous’. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. The trial resulted in conviction of the appellant for committing offence under Section 307 IPC and by an order on sentence dated 30.08.2012, he was awarded RI for three years with fine Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has preferred the appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The occurrence took place at around 09.30 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No. 24A (Ex.PW-9/A) was recorded soon thereafter at PS Seelampur on getting information from PCR about an individual to have been fired at. The police machinery came into motion; the Investigating Officer went to the spot with Const. Bitu Singh and came to know that the injured had already been taken to GTB hospital. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Waheed (Ex. PW-6/A) who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. He implicated the accused persons for inflicting injuries to his brother Rahisuddin. He also gave vivid description as to how and under what circumstances, the occurrence took place when his brother Rahisuddin demanded payment from the accused persons for the food consumed by them. Since the First Information Report was lodged in promptitude without any delay and specific role was attributed to each of the assailants, there was least possibility of the complainant to fabricate a false story. In his Court statement as PW-6 (Waheed) did not deviate from the earlier version given to the police in the statement (Ex.PW-6/A) and proved it in its entirety. He deposed that on 23.11.2008, he and his brother Rahisuddin were present in the hotel. All the three accused persons came to take dinner. When they demanded payment for the dinner, the accused persons challenged them as to how they had dared to demand money from them. They left without making payment extending threats to his brother. After 5 or 7 minutes, they all came back to the hotel and started abusing while standing outside. When his brother objected, Abid and Faisal (the appellant) exhorted Atif to take out pistol and fire at him. Atif took out a katta and fired at his brother on abdomen and they fled the spot. He took his brother to GTB hospital where his statement (Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded. In the cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded only once in the police station on the same night. He explained that one Shehnawaz had also accompanied them to hospital when the victim was taken on the motorcycle. He was not aware as to who had informed the police about the incident. He admitted that there were many employees and customers present in the hotel at the time of occurrence. He further admitted that there was no previous dispute between the victim and the accused persons or their family members. He denied the suggestion that somebody else had inflicted injury to Rahisuddin and the accused persons were falsely implicated due to a previous altercation with the victim over sharing of commission. Apparently, no ulterior motive was assigned to the victim to falsely implicate the accused persons with whom there was no prior animosity. Material facts deposed by the witness remained unchallenged in cross-examination. PW-3 (Rah