Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 521
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Jitender @ Mogli – Appellant
Versus
State (G.N.C.T of Delhi) – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 1500 of 2014
Decided On : 07-04-2015
For the Petitioner:Manika Tripathy Pandey, Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates
For the Respondent: Lovkesh Sawhney, APP
The reliability of direct ocular evidence, the special status of an injured witness's testimony, and the significance of corroborative evidence in establishing the appellant's intention to cause death under Section 307, IPC.
Headnote:
IPC - Offence under Section 307 - [IPC Section 307] - The court discussed the relevance of the prior incident, the delay in recording the statement of the injured, and the contradictions in witness testimonies. The court emphasized the significance of direct ocular evidence and the reliability of the injured witness's testimony. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the special status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness. The court referred to legal precedents to support its decision and concluded that the appellant's intention to cause death was established, leading to the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 307, IPC for attacking the complainant's brother with an iron pharsa, causing injuries. The appellant appealed against the judgment, citing contradictions in witness testimonies and delay in recording the injured's statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contradictions and minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies did not undermine the core of the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the reliability of direct ocular evidence and the injured witness's testimony, ultimately upholding the conviction under Section 307, IPC.
Issues: Contradictions in witness testimonies, delay in recording the injured's statement, and minor inconsistencies in the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of direct ocular evidence, the reliability of the injured witness's testimony, and the importance of corroborative evidence. The court also highlighted the special status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness and referred to legal precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments and upholding the conviction under Section 307, IPC.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 02 in S.C. No. 60/2012, arising out of FIR No. 321/2012, P.S.– Narela, convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), and the order on sentence dated 02.07.2014, sentencing him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for three months.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Avinash (PW-2) lives with his parents and his elder brother Gulshan (PW-1) lives in a nearby house. Around five-six days prior to the date of the incident, the complainant (PW-2) along with his sister Rachna and his brother Gulshan (PW-1) were sitting in front of the house of Gulshan (PW-1). At about 7:00 p.m., the appellant, who is the neighbour of the complainant’s brother Gulshan (PW-1), came and started abusing Gulshan (PW-1). Gulshan (PW-1) asked the appellant as to why he was abusing him without any reason and asked the appellant to go home since he had taken liquor. The appellant upon hearing this started grappling with Gulshan (PW-1). It was then that the complainant (PW-2) intervened and in the meantime the appellant’s mother also came, who caught hold of the appellant and started taking him home. The appellant, while leaving, threatened Gulshan (PW-1) that “Aaj to tu bach gya hai lakin mujhe moka milte he jangal ke ped ki terah teri gardan maine nahi kati to mera nam Jitender nahi. Mai admi ko ped ki terah se kat deta ho isliye log mujhe Mogli kehte hai.”After this incident, everybody went home.
3. On 20.06.2012 at about 5:30 p.m., the complainant Avinash (PW-2) was going to Gulshan (PW-1) and his sister’s house to meet them, where he saw Gulshan (PW-1) sitting near the door of the 4 of Kaddu. He then saw the appellant approaching Gulshan (PW-1) with an iron pharsa in his hand – which is used for cutting trees, and attacking Gulshan (PW-1) with the same. The complainant (PW-2) ran towards Gulshan (PW-1) to save him and raised an alarm. Thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot of the incident towards the railway line along with the pharsa. Gulshan (PW-1) received injuries on his neck and both the hands, and blood started oozing from the same. The complainant (PW-2) along with the son of his uncle then took Gulshan (PW-1) to SRHC Hospital on a motorcycle and got him admitted there and from there he got his brother (PW-1) admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital.
4. The FIR bearing no. 321/12 was registered at P.S. Narela and thereafter, the investigation was carried on. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, the final report under section 173, Cr. P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, who after completing all formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. On 01.10.2012, charge under section 307, IPC was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove their case. They were: PW-1 Gulshan (injured), PW-2 Avinash (complainant), PW-3 Shyam Sunder, PW-4 Ct. Kanwaljeet, PW-5 ASI Ishwar Singh – the Duty Officer, PW-6 Dr. Rishab Jain, PW-7 Dr. Mahesh Mangal, PW-8 Ranbir, PW-9 Ct. Jaswinder, PW-10 Ct. Dinesh, PW-11 Ct. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, PW-12 ASI Sajjan – the I.O. of the case, PW-13 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, PW-14 Dr. S.S. Gambhir, and PW-15 Dr. Anubhav K. Gupta. When the evidence was put to the Appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C he denied it entirely. When asked, whether he wished to say anything else, he stated that he is innocent, and that he had been falsely implicated in this case.
6. Appellant examined DW-1 Pawan in support of his defence.
7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal is filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the depositions of the comp
