Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
JITENDER KHARI – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE – Respondent
CRL.A.181 of 2014 & CRL.M.B. 225 of 2016
Decided On : 09-02-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP.
The reliability of the injured witness's testimony and the lack of motive for false implication were central to the court's decision in upholding the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Assault - [IPC Section 307] - The court found the appellant guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, as he inflicted dangerous injuries on the victim with the intention to cause fatal harm. The court discussed the evidence presented, including the victim's testimony and medical evidence, and emphasized the reliability of the injured witness's testimony. The court also considered the lack of motive for false implication and the close relationship between the appellant and the victim. The legal provisions of Section 307 IPC were interpreted in light of the evidence and influenced the court's decision to uphold the appellant's conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing an offence under Section 307 IPC for inflicting injuries on the victim with an attempt to commit murder. The victim sustained dangerous injuries and the appellant denied his involvement, claiming false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and lack of motive for false implication. The court rejected the appellant's defense and upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's denial of involvement, lack of motive for false implication, and the reliability of the victim's testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the injured witness's testimony, the lack of motive for false implication, and the dangerous nature of the injuries to uphold the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Final Decision: The appellant's appeal was disposed of, and the sentence was modified to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The appellant was also ordered to pay compensation to the victim.
S.P. GARG, J.
1. The appellant – Jitender Khari impugns a judgment dated 13.11.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.25/11 arising out of FIR No.291/10 PS Keshav Puram by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. By an order dated 19.11.2013, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs.50,000/-.
2. The factual matrix in which the appellant came to be prosecuted and convicted as reflected in the charge-sheet is that on 01.09.2010 at around 08.30 p.m. near Rajasthan Sweets/Punjab Sweets, Rumal Wali Gali, Rampura, the appellant inflicted injuries to Sunny Khari by a rod with an attempt to commit murder. Police machinery came into motion on getting information about the occurrence vide Daily Diary (DD) No.21 A (Ex.PW-5/A) recorded on 01.09.2010 at 09.25 p.m. The investigation was marked to HC Ram Dayal who with Const. Manoj went to the spot. The injured had already been taken to the hospital. On 02.09.2010 at around 06.15 p.m. PW-2 (Sumit Khari) –victim’s brother lodged complaint (Ex.PW-2/A) and the Investigating Officer registered the First Information Report. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC was laid before the Trial Court against the appellant. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation. Glaring infirmities and contradictions emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been ignored without tangible reasons. No motive was assigned to the appellant to inflict injuries to the victim, his cousin and with whom he had no prior animosity. Crime weapon allegedly recovered in this case was not identified by the victim in his Court deposition. Learned APP urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the statement of the victim who had sustained injuries ‘dangerous’ in nature on his body.
4. Admitted position is that both the appellant and the victim are closely related to each other. There was some annoyance between the two over the appellant going to the roof of the house after consuming liquor. It is alleged that the appellant had extended threats to the victim.
5. The occurrence took place on 01.09.2010 at around 08.00 p.m. DD No.21A (Ex.PW-5/A) came into existence at 09.25 p.m. where information about quarrel at H.No.266, Rumal Wali Gali, Rampura, was conveyed. Vide DD No.25A (Ex.PW-5/B) recorded at 10.55 p.m. another information was received informing that the injured had been taken to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital. On 02.09.2010 at about 06.15 p.m., PW-2 (Sumit Khari) lodged complaint (Ex.PW-2/A) and gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, the injuries were inflicted by the appellant to his brother – Sunny Khari.
6. In his Court statement, the victim appearing as PW-3 proved the version given to the police at first instance by his brother PW-2 (Sumit Khari). He deposed that on 01.09.2010 at around 08.00-08.30 p.m. when he was coming back after purchasing eatables from a ‘dhaba’ and reached near Rajasthan Sweet/Punjab Sweet at main road Rampura, he was hit by an iron rod on his head. On sustaining the blow, he started running and saw the accused Jitender chasing him with an iron rod in his hand. The appellant again struck another iron rod blow on his head, as a result of which he became unconscious. When he regained senses, he saw his brother Sumit Khari lifting him from
