Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Suraj - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 1073 of 2023, CRL.M.(Bail) No. 1807 of 2023
Decided On : 15-01-2024
Section 308 IPC - Appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging conviction under Section 308 IPC - The court discussed the delay in FIR registration, reliability of witnesses, and the intention behind the assault. The court upheld the conviction based on the testimony of the injured and the gravity of the injuries inflicted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 308 IPC for assaulting the victim over a relationship issue. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the delay in FIR registration satisfactorily explained and upheld the conviction based on the testimony of the injured, despite lack of support from other witnesses.
Issues: Reliability of witness testimony, delay in FIR registration, and intention behind the assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can rely on the testimony of a single witness if found wholly reliable, and minor discrepancies in testimony may not discredit the witness entirely.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order on sentence dated 26.08.2023 and 30.10.2023 respectively, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 308 IPC in FIR No.477/2021 registered at PS: Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
2. In brief, the law was set into motion vide DD No.89A on 23.08.2021 followed by registration of FIR No.477/2021, PS: Shahbad Dairy, Delhi under Section 308/34 IPC on the statement of Sunny (PW1), which culminated in filing of charge-sheet against appellant Suraj and co-accused Robin. It may be noticed at this stage itself that co-accused Robin who was charge-sheeted along with the appellant was acquitted vide the impugned judgment.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.08.2021, injured Arjun (PW-2) received a call from appellant Suraj to meet him in Matke Wali Gali, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. When Arjun reached Matke Wali Gali along with his friend/neighbour Sunny (PW-1/complainant), he was confronted by appellant on the issue of Arjun having proximity with his ex-girlfriend namely Monika. Arjun was further assaulted by appellant who was joined by two-three other associates including Robin. As Sunny raised alarm, appellant along with other co-accused fled from the spot. Arjun was removed to Dr.BSA Hospital, from wherein he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. The information regarding the incident was reported to the police telephonically on the next day i.e. 23.08.2021 by sister of the injured (Neha/PW-5), which was entered vide DD No.89A. Statement of Arjun was also recorded during course of investigation. Appellant was arrested on 08.02.2022 since he was lodged in JC in another case bearing e-FIR No.3060/21 under Section 379/411 IPC, PS: K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi. Co-accused Robin was also arrested from Rohini Jail wherein he was lodged in case FIR No.675/21, under Section 302 IPC, PS: Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. Charge was framed against appellant Suraj as well as co-accused Robin for the offences punishable under Section 308/34 IPC.
4. In support of the prosecution case, ten witnesses were examined. PW-1 complainant Sunny and PW-2 injured Arjun are the material witnesses relating to assault. PW-4 Subhash (father of injured) was examined to prove that Arjun had left about 09.00 PM on the date of incident and subsequently Arjun informed him regarding assault by appellant and Robin. It may be noticed at this stage itself that PW-4 was cross-examined on behalf of prosecution and declared hostile since he denied that Arjun had informed him that Robin was also involved in the assault. PW-5 Neha (sister/cousin of injured) was also examined to prove that Arjun had left on the date of incident along with his friend Sunny and also proved the photographs of Arjun taken after the assault at BSA Hospital. PW-3 ASI Shri Chand, (Duty Officer), PW-6 ASI Surender Singh, PW-7 Dr.Pawan Chaudhary (Sr. Resident, Department of Neurosurgery, Safdarjung Hospital) and PW-10 Dr.Manu Tripathi (CMO, Dr.BSA Hospital) are formal witnesses. PW-8 HC Vijay Prakash and PW-9 ASI Rakesh Kumar were associated with investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the learned Trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures since PW-1 Sunny (complainant) who is alleged to have been present at the spot did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. It is also urged that PW-4 Subhash, father of injured did not support the prosecution version and resiled from his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. qua role of co-accused Robin. Further, the testimony of PW-2 Arjun (injured) is stated to be unreliable since he did not support the prosecution version on the point of assault by co-accused Robin. It is also urged that PW-2 Arjun (injured) had animosity with the appellant on the issue of an ex-girlfriend namely Monika and, as such, was falsely implicated. It is
Reliance on the testimony of a single witness and the gravity of injuries in determining the intention behind the assault.
The Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness possesses significant evidentiary weight, and the premeditated nature of the attack ruled out claims of sudden provocation, justifying t....
The credibility of witness testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the quality of evidence are crucial in determining guilt or innocence.
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborating witness testimonies with medical evidence and recognized the spontaneous nature of the incident in determining culpability.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, caution against relying solely on the testimony of a hostile witness, and the absence of conclusive evidence poi....
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so, due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
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
