The appellate court cannot interfere with an acquittal without very substantial and compelling reasons, as acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A.4694/2020 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A.4693/2020 (condonation of delay)

Keeping in view the averments in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the present petition is condoned.

Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.

CRL.L.P. 187/2020

1. Present criminal leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the judgement dated 2nd September, 2019 and order on sentence dated 7th September, 2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, E-Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in FIR No. 505/2016 registered with Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted under Section 307 IPC and was instead convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone i.e. about eight months and nineteen days.

2. The relevant facts of the present case as noted by the Trial Court are as under:

"1. Criminal law was set into motion on 08.12.2016 at 10.10 pm when a call was received regarding causing injuries with blade in a quarrel, which was recorded vide DD No.71-B at PS Jyoti Nagar pursuant to which ASI Beghraj Singh alongwith HC Bijender Singh reached at H.No.151, Gali No.3, New Kardam Puri, Delhi, where they came to know that injured was taken to GTB hospital by his cousin Haleem. Thereupon, ASI Beghraj Singh alongwith HC Bijender Singh reached at GTB hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Anees Ahmed S/o. Late Akeel Ahmed, who was opined fit to make statement. ASI Beghraj Singh recorded the statement of injured. The gist of the statement is that complainant are five brothers and his three brothers are residing with his mother Rahisa at Gali No.3, Kardam Puri, Delhi. His younger brother Nibul is drug-addict, who was asking money from his mother. He scolded his brother Nibul. Thereupon, Nibul went outside from house in anger and brought some pointed object and hit him, due to which he sustained injuries on his left hand, chest and neck and Nibul ran away from there. His cousin brother Haleem brought him to GTB hospital. On the basis of above statement of complainant, present case FIR was registered. Accused was arrested. Further investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

xxx xxx xxx

3. Initially charge against accused was framed u/s. 308 IPC, however, later on the amended charge u/s. 307 IPC was framed against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."

3. Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned APP for the State states that the trial court had erred in showing undue leniency to the respondent-accused as it failed to appreciate that the attack was on vital organs i.e. neck and chest of the victim with a sharp edged weapon.

4. Having perused the leave petition as well as accompanying documents, this Court finds that the incident in the present case had taken place in a sudden fight and at the spur of the moment.

5. This Court is in agreement with the findings of the Trial Court that the respondent-accused had no intention to cause death of the victim. The relevant findings of the Trial Court on this aspect are reproduced hereinbelow:

"18. The main contention of Ld. Defence Counsel was that ingredients of section 307 IPC are not attracted as accused had no intention to commit murder of complainant. Admittedly, the quarrel took place when complainant tried to make understand his brother, who was asking money from his mother to consume Ganja and thereafter, he slapped him twice. Thus, the quarrel took place at the spur of the moment. Weapon of offence was