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 307 IPC.

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 case. PW10 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. The copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 12.07.2012, framed a charge under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and A1 was additionally charged with the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, which was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 15 were examined and Exhibits PW2/A-B, PW4/A-K, PW6/A-D, PW7/A- F, PW9/A-B, PW10/C-E, PW8/DA, PW13/A, PW15/A-B, PW13/A and PW14/A-D were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They claimed that they have been falsely implicated.

7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (SeeMoidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.

8. DW1 was examined on behalf of the accused persons. No documentary evidence was adduced in support of the defence case.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2018, held A1 and A2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted A3 of the charges. Vide order on sentence dated 16.04.2018, A1 and A2 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹ 10,000 each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six m