* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 11.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 17.03.2026 + CRL.A. 399/2017 SURAJ @ SATISH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).

Versus THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by accused number 1 (A1), in Sessions Case No. 1511/2016 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, assailing the judgment dated 21.03.2017 and order on sentence dated

24.03.2017 as per which he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that on 01.03.2013 at about

7:45 PM at Ali Fields Village, A1 and A2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW2, by stabbing him with a knife and giving fist blows. A1 and A2 also committed robbery of one mobile phone and ₹5,000/-

from PW2.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A FIS of PW2, given on

02.03.2013, Crime No. 79 of 2013, Sarita Vihar Police Station, that is, Ext. PW1/A FIR was registered by PW1, Constable. PW12 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397 and 34 IPC. 4. When the accused persons were produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session. After hearing both sides, the trial court, as per order dated 03.02.2014, framed a Charge under Sections 392, 397 read with 34 IPC against A1 and A2. Additionally, the trial court also framed a Charge under Section 174A IPC against A2. The charge was read over and explained to A1 and A2, to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to 15 were examined and Exts. PW1//A, PW2/A-C, PW3/A, PW4/A, PW5/A- H, PW6/A, PW7/A, PW9/A, PW10/A, PW11/A-C, PW12/A-E, PW13/A-D, and PW15/A-D were marked in support of the prosecution case.

6. On behalf of A2, DW1 was examined and Ext. DW1/A was marked in support of the defence case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. They denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence, stating that they had been falsely implicated in the present case as PW2 was having illicit relations with A1’s sister who is the wife of A2.

8. After questioning the accused persons 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 Section 232 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 (see Moidu K. versus State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89; 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, appellant/A1 has no case that non- compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.

9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2017 found A1 and A2 guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. A2 has also been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 174A IPC. Accordingly, vide order on sentence dated 24.03.2017, A1 and A2 have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years each along with fine of ₹1,500/-, for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment f