The testimony of an injured witness carries significant weight and should be accepted unless strong evidence discredits it, as it ensures the witness's presence at the crime scene.

JUDGMENT

[Hearing held through video conferencing]

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a judgment dated 11.08.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, North District, Rohini Court, Delhi (the Appellate Court). The petitioner also impugns the judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-6, North District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (the Trial Court) in Case 5293546/2016 arising out of FIR No. 700/2014 under Section 325 /34 of the IPC registered with PS Adarsh Nagar. The petitioner also impugns the order on sentence dated 29.02.2020, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to serve six months simple imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 325 of the IPC.

2. The FIR in question was registered on 14.10.2014 at the instance of the injured/victim (Mr Tunna Lal). Mr Tunna Lal (hereafter the `complainant') was examined as PW 1. He stated that he used to run a rickshaw. He testified that on 04.10.2014 at about 6.30 p.m. he reached Rameshwar Nagar, Azadpur for purchasing some vegetables. He purchased vegetables for Rs.12/- and gave the seller (accused Veerpal-the petitioner herein) a currency note of Rs.20/- and he asked him to return the change. The petitioner informed him that he did not have any change. On hearing this, the complainant placed the vegetables back on the Rehri (hand Cart) of the petitioner and started moving towards another vegetable vendor (Rehri). The complainant testified that on witnessing the complainant moving away, the petitioner got infuriated and started beating him and his associates also joined him. He deposed that the petitioner had hit him with a sharp edged weapon; resultantly he sustained injuries on his eye. He testified that he left his belongings and started moving away but the petitioner along with his associates again started beating him. After some time, they fled from the spot. He also stated that the police officials asked him to go to some hospital. Thereafter, he along with his relatives went to AIIMS hospital. After a few days he went to the police station and got his statement recorded (which was exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A). In his cross-examination he confirmed that the said statement was given to the police officials on 14.10.2014.

3. The complainant also testified that he had accompanied the police officials to the site on 29.11.2014 and had identified the accused Veer Pal (the petitioner herein) as the person who had hit his eye with a sharp edged weapon. He also confirmed that the police officials had prepared a site plan at his instance.

4. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court for committing an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC mainly on the basis of the testimony of the complainant (PW1). By an order dated 29.02.2020 he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

5. It is seen that the Trial Court also took into account the MLC of the complainant/injured, which established that the injury suffered by the complainant was grievous. The MLC also indicated that the injury was inflicted by a knife.

6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that (i) there was a delay in filing of the FIR; (ii) the other co-accused have not been apprehended; (iii) even though the incident had taken place at a crowded spot independent witnesses were not examined; and (iv) the knife in question has not been recovered. The Trial Court did not find any of the said contentions to be persuasive. There was a delay of ten days in lodging the FIR but the same was adequately explained by the complainant. He stated that he