The testimonies of injured witnesses are accorded special status in law and are considered reliable, especially when consistent and supported by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment on conviction dated 24.10.2019 and the order on sentence dated 30.10.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-02 (North-East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 257/2017 arising out of FIR No. 244/2017 registered under Sections 307/324 IPC at Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/324 IPC and vide the order on sentence, he was sentenced as follows:-

(i) for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 06 years, alongwith payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default whereof to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 03 months, and

(ii) for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 01 year, alongwith payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 01 month.

3. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the fines have already been paid.

4. The brief facts, as noted by the Trial Court, are as under:-

"1. In brief the facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.05.2017, ASI Surender Pal received DD No. 115B. On receipt of the DD, ASI Surender Pal along with Ct. Jhabar Ram reached at the spot i.e. Purani Chowki, Mustafabad, Delhi. On reaching there, they came to know that the injured had already been removed to GTB Hospital. Thereafter, ASI Surender Pal along with Ct. Jhabar Ram reached GTB Hospital and collected the MLC No. A-4451/17 of injured Yunus S/o Sh. Yusuf wherein the doctor had mentioned physical assault and U/O'. In the meantime, brother of injured Yusuf namely Sahil also came in the hospital in an injured condition who was also got admitted in the hospital by ASI Surender Pal vide MLC No. C-1908/17 and the doctor had mentioned on his MLC as physical assault fit & U/O sharp'. Thereafter, ASI Surender Pal recorded statement of injured Yunus wherein he stated that he is the permanent resident of Village Daurala, PS Daurala, Meerut UP and along with hisfamily was residing on rent and works as sewing machine mechanic. On 24.05.2017, he along with his brother Sahil was going to buy some medicine and when at about 10.00 PM, they reached at the corner of Block Gali No. 7, Nehru Vihar, accused Saleem, who resided in Gali o. 6 Dayalpur assaulted upon him with knife on his neck and right shoulder. When Sahil (brother of Yunus) came to rescue him, he was also assaulted by accused Saleem and caused injuries to him. He further narrated that accused Saleem had met him in the day time and had said 'tune hamare upar mukadma karaya hai, mai tujhe aaj shaam takjaan se maar dunga' and also threatened him. On this, Sahil (brother of Yunus) called at 100 number, PCR van came and took him and his brother Sahil to the GTB hospital. "

5. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 307/324/506 IPC. Vide order dated 06.09.2018, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 307/324 IPC, to which he pled not guilty and claimed trial.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the testimony of complainant/Mohd. Yunus is unreliable on account of prior enmity with the appellant, which has been admitted by the complainant himself. It was submitted that neither the weapon of offence was recovered during investigation nor were the complainant's blood-stained clothes seized. Further, the testimony of brother of the complainant/Sahil was contended to be unreliable on the ground that Sahil had not accompanied his brother to the hospital. It was also submitted that the PCR Form pertaining to call on 100 number was not produced.

Learned counsel also contended that the testi