Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 426
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
Rashid @ Raju Mental
Versus
The State of The NCT of Delhi
CRL.A. No. 1014 of 2012
Decided On : 10-02-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
An injured witness enjoys greater credibility, and the nature of injuries can be crucial in determining guilt.
Headnote:
Injury - Criminal Law - Section 307 IPC, Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act - [Section 307 IPC, Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act] - The court upheld the appellant's guilt based on the testimony of the injured witness, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon. The judgment referenced the legal principle that an injured witness enjoys greater credibility and highlighted the dangerous nature of the injuries inflicted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed the judgment convicting him under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act for inflicting injuries with a knife on the victim. The appellant denied complicity and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found the appellant guilty based on the testimony of the injured witness, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon. The court rejected the appellant's claim of false implication.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of the injured witness, the nature of the injuries, and the appellant's involvement in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that an injured witness enjoys greater credibility and considered the dangerous nature of the injuries inflicted on the victim.
Final Decision: The appellant's sentence under Section 307 IPC was reduced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, taking into account his personal circumstances.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by Rashid @ Raju Mental to challenge the legality of a judgment dated 26.05.2012 in Sessions Case No. 67/11 arising out of FIR No. 324/09 PS Govind Puri by which he was held perpetrator of the crime under Section 307 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act. By an order dated 28.05.2012, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs.10,000/- under Section 307 IPC and RI for two years with fine Rs.5,000/- under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 19.08.2009 at about 08.30 P.M. in a park near Gali No. 25, near Masjid, Tughlakabad Extension, he inflicted injuries to Asfaq Ahmad by a knife. The police swung into action after getting information about the stabbing incident inside the park and Daily Diary (DD) No. 30A (Ex.PW-6/A) was entered at 09.49 P.M. at PS Govind Puri. The investigation was assigned to SI Sahi Ram who with Const. Manoj went to the park and found complainant – Asfaq Ahmad lying injured there. He was taken in a TSR to Trauma Centre, AIIMS and admitted there. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant – Asfaq Ahmad’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A). On 21.08.2009, the appellant was arrested and from his possession a butandar knife (Ex.P1) was recovered. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted; the accused was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statement, he pleaded false implication and denied complicity in the crime. However, he did not examine any witness in defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimony of the complainant without independent corroboration. The appellant had no intention to inflict fatal injuries. Only a single blow was given on the body of the injured. Ingredient of Section 307 IPC were not attracted and proved. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the injuries were inflicted by the complainant with the avowed object and intention to kill.
4. The occurrence took place on 19.08.2009 at about 08.30 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No. 30A (Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded regarding the said incident at 09.49 P.M. at PS Govind Puri. Soon thereafter, PW-8 (SI Sahi Ram) went to the spot and took the injured / victim to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS. The MLC (Ex.PW-4/C) records the arrival time of the patient at 23.15 hours. It records that the patient was found lying in a park. The injuries were opined ‘dangerous’ by sharp weapon. Certainly, there is delay in lodging the report on 20.08.2009 at 10.45 P.M. However, reasonable explanation given by the prosecution witnesses that the victim was not in a fit condition to make statement soon after his arrival at the Trauma Centre and was crying in pain inspires confidence. When he was declared fit to make statement, next day, detailed statement implicating the appellant was recorded. In the statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the complainant gave vivid description of the occurrence and named the appellant for inflicting injuries by a knife on his abdomen. In the Court statement, the complainant proved the version given to the police at the first instance and assigned specific motive to the appellant for inflicting injuries to him. The appellant, who considered himself to be the boss of the area ordered the complainant to stand up from the bench on which he was sitting. When the complainant did not obey his command, an altercation took place. The accused took out a knife and inflicted blow on the abdomen. In the cross-examination, the complainant disclosed that he knew the appellant prior to the inc
