$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 759/2018 AKASH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Ms. Shivam Sethi and Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Advocates versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with SI Harish CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 01.12.2025

1. By way of the present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2018 and the order on sentence dated 22.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 27693/2016 arising out of FIR No. 509/2014 registered at Police Station Paharganj, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

2. Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months under section 307 IPC. The benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to him.

3. The sentence of the appellant was thereafter suspended vide order dated 21.01.2019 passed by this Court.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 06.10.2014 at about 7:15 p.m., an altercation took place between the complainant, Radhey Shyam, and the appellant, who was his neighbour. It was alleged that the appellant, on account of previous disputes relating to parking of a bicycle near the complainant’s residence, attacked the complainant with a knife and inflicted multiple stab injuries on his thighs and buttocks. The complainant was removed to Lady Hardinge Medical College, where he underwent treatment. The appellant was apprehended thereafter, and the weapon of offence was recovered at his instance.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 15 witnesses. The principal witness is the injured himself, Radhey Shyam, examined as PW-2, who narrated the incident in detail. PW-7 Yogita (daughter of the injured) and PW-8 Krishna (wife of the injured) stated that they heard cries for help and saw the appellant stabbing the injured repeatedly. Police witnesses PW- 9 Constable Kuldeep and PW-13 SI Satpal deposed regarding the DD entry, site inspection, seizure of exhibits, and arrest of the appellant. PW-5 Dr. Dhruv Jyoti, SR, accident, LHMC proved the MLC recording multiple stab wounds with active bleeding, while PW-10 Dr. Bimlesh Thakur, SR, Surgery, LHMC proved the subsequent opinion classifying the injuries as grievous. Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj, Sr. Scientific Officer (FSL Biology), examined as PW-14 who deposed that the crime cut marks Q1 to Q23 on the underwear and the pants could have been caused by seized knife. . Ms. Poonam Sharma, Asstt. Director(Biology), FSL examined as PW-15 (FSL Weapon Examiner) deposed that the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit SG(knife) was similar with the DNA profile from the source of exhibit S5(blood sample of complainant).

6. The defence examined one witness, DW-1 HC Vikender, who produced a DD entry No. 51 pertaining to an alleged earlier quarrel between the parties. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all allegations and stated that he was falsely implicated. The complainant was a habitual drinker and quarrelsome, and the witnesses were interested because the appellant’s mother had made a complaint against them, prior to registration of FIR. No alternative version regarding how the injuries occurred was furnished.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident arose out of a sudden altercation relating to a trivial neighbourhood dispute, without premeditation or intention to cause death, the blows were not directed towards vital organs, and therefore, even if the prosecution version is accepted, the offence would fall under Section 308 IPC rather than Section

307 IPC.

8. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant are ref