Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 7156

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
STATE – Appellant
Versus
MOHIT KUMAR & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.A.-541/2009

Advocates:
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Ajit Krishna, P.S. Gokalpuri; Mr. Kapil Singhal, Advocate.

The prosecution must establish intent or knowledge to cause death for conviction under Section 308 IPC, with credible witness testimony being essential.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 308/34 - Appeal against acquittal - Respondents acquitted for attempted culpable homicide - Prosecution failed to establish intent and knowledge required under Section 308 IPC - Testimony of key witnesses found contradictory and unreliable - Acquittal set aside, respondents convicted under Section 308/34 IPC. (Paras 1, 6, 38, 40)

(B) Criminal Law - Ingredients of offence under Section 308 IPC - Requires proof of intention or knowledge to cause injury likely to result in death - Nature of weapon and severity of injury are critical factors. (Paras 14, 15, 18)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that on 20.09.2006, the respondents attacked the complainant with a sharp instrument, causing serious injury. The complainant was unconscious and received medical treatment. The respondents were acquitted by the trial court due to contradictions in witness testimonies. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents intentionally inflicted injury on the complainant, establishing the offence under Section 308 IPC. (Paras 38)

Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution established the requisite intent and knowledge for the offence under Section 308 IPC and the reliability of witness testimonies. (Paras 6, 40)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must establish intent or knowledge to cause death, and the testimonies of witnesses must be consistent and credible. The trial court erred in disbelieving the injured's testimony. (Paras 38, 39)

Result: The impugned Judgment dated 01.10.2008 is hereby set aside and the respondents are convicted under Section 308/34 of the IPC, 1860.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The prosecution must prove intent or knowledge to cause death under Section 308 IPC; credible witness testimony is essential. (!) (!) - The court emphasized factors for assessing intent/knowledge: nature of weapon, circumstances, and severity of injuries; witness credibility must be consistent and credible. (!) (!) (!) - The trial court’s acquittal was set aside; respondents convicted under Section 308/34 IPC. (!) - The injured’s testimony (PW-2) and corroborating evidence (medical records, PCR, identification) establish the offense beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Identification of respondents and recovery of weapon (nail cutter) considered, with caveats about weapon recovery timing but not undermining prosecution case. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court rejected perceived contradictions between PW-1 and PW-2 and held testimony consistent when read holistically. (!) (!) (!) - The matter is listed for sentence on 30.08.2024. (!)

What is the standard for proving intent or knowledge under Section 308 IPC as applied in this appeal?

What are the considerations regarding witness credibility and consistency in establishing the offence under Section 308/34 IPC?

What is the court's ruling on the acquittal and the consequent conviction under Section 308/34 IPC?

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „CrPC, 1973‟) has been filed on behalf of the appellant, to challenge the Judgment dated 01.10.2008 vide which the respondents, namely, Mohit Kumar and Sandeep Kumar, have been acquitted for the offence under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as „ IPC , 1860‟).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 20.09.2006, at about 5:30 p.m., Mohit Kumar (accused), son of Shish Pal along with another boy (co-accused Sandeep Kumar), went to the house of the complainant Maninder Gautam and called him outside, after which they abused and threatened him and then hit him with a pointed/sharp instrument, which resulted in a serious wound on his head. He started bleeding profusely and became unconscious. His neighbour, Mr. Kamal Singh, who saw him lying unconscious, called the PCR and the injured was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital where he received 21 stitches on his head. Thereafter, on his complaint, FIR No. 701/2006 under Section 308/34 of IPC , was registered.

3. Subsequently, on 26.09.2006, the respondents were arrested at the instance of the complainant. The two co-accused/respondents led the police for the recovery of the nail cutter from near the wall, close to the place of incident. On the completion of investigation, the Charge-Sheet was filed in the Court and the charges were framed under Section 308/34 IPC .

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses out of whom PW-1 Kamal Singh was the person, who had called the PCR. PW-2 Maninder Gautam is the injured, who had proved his complaint Ex.PW-2/1 and had deposed about the entire incident. PW-3 Sanjay Tomar, who was an eye witness but he failed to support the case of the prosecution. PW-6 Dr. P. Yadav, CMO, GTB Hospital had examined the inured on 30.09.2006 and prepared his MLC, Ex.PW-6/1. PW-7 Dr. Pradeep Saini has opined the nature of injury to be simple. PW-10 Head Constable Ashok Kumar had joined the investigations with PW-9 ASI Dharam Singh, the Investigating Officer and effected the recovery of the nail cutter at the instance of the respondents. Rest were the police witnesses who have deposed about the investigations that had been carried out.

5. The statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence. They examined DW-1, Roshan Lal who deposed that he was present at the Bhushan Nai (barber shop) on 20.09.2006 at about 5:30 p.m. and no incident of fight took place.

6. Learned ASJ observed that PW-1 Kamal Singh, who had found the injured lying unconscious had deposed that he had seen the injured walking towards him in injured condition with blood profusely coming out of his head and had also deposed that the injured had disclosed the names of the assailants to him. It was observed that the testimony of PW-1 Kamal Singh was contradictory to the testimony of the injured, PW-2 Maninder Gautam, who had deposed that he had fainted soon after the injury was inflicted and then gained consciousness only in the GTB Hospital. Learned ASJ further observed that the identity of the weapon of offence i.e. nail cutter was not be established and the possibility of the weapon of offence having been planted could not be ruled out. Thus, the story of the prosecution was not believed and the two respondents were acquitted.

7. Aggrieved, the present Appeal has been filed wherein the impugned Order of acquittal, has been challenged by the State on the grounds that the testimony of PW-1, Kamal Singh and PW-2 Maninder proved the entire chain of events, which led to the commission of the offence.

8. Secondly, minor discrepancies in the testimony, have been over emphasized and they do not cast any doubt on the actual happening of the event.

9. Thirdly, learned ASJ has also overlooked that the inability of the complainant/injured to identify the weapon of offence,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document