Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
Nazim – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.) the 1st Accused (A1) and the 2nd Accused (A2) in SC No. 44828/2015 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, assail the judgment dated 09.04.2018 and the order on sentence dated 16.04.2018 as per which both A1 and A2 have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ).
2. The prosecution case is that on 30.05.2010 at about 9.00 PM, near Gali No. 3, Chauhan Bangar, A1 and A2, along with A3, assaulted PW1 and inflicted grievous injuries upon him with a knife and a razor. Accordingly, as per the charge sheet/final report, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A PCR Call vide DD No. 17A, received on 10.03.2015 at 09.11 PM, Crime No. 134/2010, Jafrabad Police Station, i.e., Exhibit PW2/B FIR was registered by PW3, Constable. PW10, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) was entrusted with the investigation of the
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder, affirming that injuries sustained by the victim, combined with their reliability as an injured witness, demonstrated intent to kill under Section....
The testimony of an injured witness holds significant evidentiary value, and even minor contradictions do not undermine the reliability of their evidence in establishing an attempt to commit murder.
Eyewitness testimony of injured parties holds significant weight; intention for murder requires clear evidence of premeditation and knowledge of potential injury, not merely a quarrel.
(1) Minor discrepancies should not be given undue importance that don’t go to root of matter. Such contradictions are not material contradictions and evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed asid....
The court held that intent and knowledge are crucial in determining culpability under Section 308 IPC, and insufficient evidence of intent or aggravating circumstances necessitates acquittal under th....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimony can invalidate a case leading to acquittal.
The court clarified that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused's intention to kill, which was not established in this case.
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
