Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Ajay Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 860 of 2017
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : A.K. Choudhary, Nikita Paik, Deepika
For the Respondent: Pradeep Gahlot

Minor injuries do not negate culpability for attempt to commit murder; intention inferred from actions and circumstances surrounding the act.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Arms Act, 1959 - Conviction for attempt to murder - Accused fired at victim with a country-made pistol, injuring her - Key issue was whether intention to kill was established - Court emphasized that minor injuries do not negate culpability under Section 307 IPC - Court upheld the trial court's conviction based on reliable testimony of the victim, supported by circumstantial evidence. (Paras 28, 30, 34)

Facts of the case:
The accused fired at the victim during an altercation, but the bullet only grazed her sleeve. Victim's testimony was crucial and consistent, and corroborated by scientific evidence of gunshot residue.

Findings of Court:
The trial court accurately assessed evidence, leading to a just conviction.

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved intent to kill and whether the absence of independent eyewitnesses affected credibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the intention does not solely rely on the injury's severity; the circumstances and conduct of the accused establish intent under Section 307 IPC.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. accused's conviction context and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. testimony evaluation and evidentiary support. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 , 15)
3. defense claims of false implication and lack of motive. (Para 10 , 11)
4. culpability under section 307 ipc based on intention. (Para 13 , 28 , 30 , 32)
5. final ruling on appeal and case closure. (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.), the sole accused in SC No. 6646/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, assails the judgment dated 26.07.2017 and the order on sentence dated 10.08.2017 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ).

2. The prosecution case is that on 10.03.2015, at about 8:30 PM, in front of House No. 98, DDA Flats, South Enclave, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi, the accused fired at PW1 with a country-made pistol causing an injury. The accused did not have a license to own a fire arm. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 , 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Arms Act).

3. On the basis of Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, given on 10.03.2015, crime no. 237/2015, Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, i.e., Exhibit PW5/B FIR was registered by PW5, Head Constable. PW11, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. PW11 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. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all 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 01.07.2015, framed a charge under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 14 were examined and Exhibits PW1/A-G, PW4/A, PW3/A-B, PW5/A-D, PW6/A, PW8/A-C, PW8/DA, PW11/A-D, PW12/A, PW13/A and PW14/A-D were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He claimed that he had been falsely implicated due to a dispute with PW1 relating to a mobile phone.

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. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgement dated 26.07.2017 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC . Vide order on sentence dated 10.08.2017, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under . Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal.

10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appell