Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Narender Kumar @ Bittoo - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. 986 of 2002
Decided On : 19-03-2024
Section 307 IPC - Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - 374 - 482 - 428
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC for stabbing the complainant at a hotel. The prosecution's case was supported by witness testimony and medical evidence. The appellant denied the incident and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence to be credible and convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC. The court also acquitted the co-accused due to lack of evidence.
Issues: Discrepancies in witness testimony, false implication, and lack of independent witnesses were raised as issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the quality of evidence over quantity, the credibility of the injured witness, and the corroboration of evidence. It also considered the delay in recording the FIR and the role of co-accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remainder of the sentence.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - Present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against judgment and order on sentence, dated 09.07.2002 and 15.07.2002 respectively, in SC No.5/99, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month). Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been extended to the appellant.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution as recorded in the impugned judgment, on 12.08.1997, on receipt of DD No.8B, SI Randhir Singh along with Ct. Durga Prasad reached at M.R. Hospital, Village Karala wherein they were informed that injured Sanjay, after receiving first aid, left along with his brother for an unknown hospital. The injured could not be traced in any Government hospitals by SI Randhir Singh. In the meantime, DD No.5A was handed over to SI Randhir Singh wherein it was recorded that injured had been admitted in Saroj Hospital, Madhuban Chowk.
Statement of injured Sanjay was recorded wherein he alleged that on 12.08.1997 in the midnight at about 12:30 am, he had visited Punjabi Chicken Corner owned by his neighbour Narender @ Bittoo. As he complained to hotel owner about the quality of food served, owner of the hotel (Narender/appellant) became agitated and stabbed him with a knife lying on the table, on the right side of the chest. Complainant/injured was initially moved to M.R. Hospital from where his brother Satish shifted him to Saroj Hospital. Accordingly, FIR No.739/97 was registered under Section 307/34 at PS: Sultanpuri.
3. Appellant/accused Narender @ Bittoo was arrested during the course of investigation and on his disclosure, knife used in the assault was recovered at his instance. It may also be noticed that in supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. complainant further alleged that at the time of the incident, he was caught hold by co-accused Devender and injury was inflicted by appellant Narender @ Bittoo. Charge-sheet was accordingly presented after investigation against both the accused.
4. Charge was framed against both the accused under Sections 307/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide impugned judgment, co-accused Devender was acquitted giving benefit of doubt, while appellant stands convicted under Section 307 IPC.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses. PW-2 Sanjay (injured) is the material witness on the point of assault. PW-1 Dr.Sanjeev Chopra proved the MLC (Ex.PW-1/A): PW-3 Sunil (brother of Sanjay) deposed regarding admission of injured Sanjay at Saroj Hospital and proved the site plan Ex.PW-3/A. PW-4 ASI Mahabir Singh (Duty Officer) proved the FIR (Ex.PW-4/A). PW-5 Ct. Neg Ram and PW-6 Ct. Virender deposed on the point of arrest of appellant Narender and proved his personal search memo Ex.PW-5/A, disclosure statement made by the accused Ex.PW-5/B and pointing out memo Ex.PW-5/C. They further deposed that knife was recovered at instance of appellant which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-5/C and also proved the sketch of the knife Ex.PW-5/D. PW-7 Ct. Durga Prasad deposed that he had taken rukka to the Police Station for registration of FIR and handed over copy of FIR to SI Randhir Singh. PW-8 HC Chand Singh MHC(M) deposed that two parcels containing blood stained clothes and knife were deposited by SI Randhir Singh as per Ex. PW8/A on 13.08.1997. Further the said parcels were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar on 21.10.1997 through Ct. Ashok. PW-10 Ct. Ashok deposed regarding taking of the two parcels from Malkhana and depositing the same with FSL, Malviya Nagar on 21.10.1997. PW-9 SI Randhir Singh (I.O) deposed regarding conduct of investigation.
6. Statement of accused was thereafter recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant denied the incident and claimed to have been falsely implicat
The credibility of witness testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the quality of evidence are crucial in determining guilt or innocence.
Reliance on the testimony of a single witness and the gravity of injuries in determining the intention behind the assault.
To establish an offense under Section 307 IPC, proof of intent to kill is required; a single injury does not suffice to conclude such intent, allowing for conviction under Section 326 IPC instead.
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment due to the appellant's age and reformation.
The intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by i....
The court affirmed the conviction for attempt to murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment due to the appellant's age and subsequent conduct, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
