$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 7^th April, 2026 Uploaded on: 9^th April, 2026 + CRL.A. 567/2015 STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant Through: Mr.RiteshKr.Bahri,APPfortheState with Ms. Divya Yadav and Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advs.

versus MUKESH & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu (DHCLSC), Ms.

Devyani Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. ThisisanappealfiledbytheState(Govt.ofNCTofDelhi)challenging thejudgmentdated3rdNovember,2014andtheorderonsentencedated22nd November, 2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 28/1 titled ‘State v. Mukesh & Anr.’ arising out of FIR No. 169/09, registered at PS Mangol Puri, Delhi.

3. Vide the impugned judgment dated 3rd November, 2014, the ld. Trial Court had held the two accused persons guiltyand had convicted themfor the offence u/s 326/34, IPC.

4. Further, vide order on sentence dated 22nd November, 2014, benefit of probation was given to both accused persons and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each was directed to be paid as compensation to the injured person/victim– Rafiq.

5. Itisagainstthesaidjudgmentonconvictiondated3rdNovember,2014 and the orderonsentencedated22nd November,2014,that the State has filed the present Appeal. The State, vide this appeal has sought for setting aside or modification of the impugned judgment and order to the effect that the Respondents be convicted under Section 307/34, IPC and their sentence be accordingly enhanced as well.

6. The background giving rise to this case is that an incident took place on 27^th May, 2009, when both the Respondents, i.e. Mukesh s/o Ramji Lal (hereinafter, ‘Mukesh-I’) and Mukesh s/o Mr. Babu Sahab (hereinafter, ‘Mukesh-II’) had caused an injury to one Rafiq (hereinafter, ‘the injured person’).

7. The said incident took place when the injured person– PW/6 and his brother-in-law– Mohd. Rustam, i.e. PW/5 were going to Mangol Puri by bus. Upon alighting from the bus and while walking towards the Katran market in Mangol Puri, a verbal spat took place between both the accused persons on one side, and the injured person, as also PW/5 on the other side.

8. In the course of that verbal spat, Mukesh-II caused a knife injury to Rafiq(PW/6)intheabdomen.Duetothesaidinjury,heremainedhospitalized for about five days.

9. Upon the PCR van being called, DD No.22A was recorded at PS Mangol Puri and on the statements of PW/5– Rustam, who was present on the spot at the time of the incident, FIR No. 169/09 was registered and further investigation was then conducted.

10. Chargesheet was filed on 18^th August, 2011 and the case was then committedtotheSessionsCourton8^thDecember,2011.Chargeswereframed u/s307/34,IPCagainstboththeRespondents,i.e.Mukesh-I&Mukesh-IIvide order on charge dated 10th October, 2012 and the matter proceeded to trial.

11. Before theld.Trial Court,19 witnesses were examined onbehalf of the prosecution. The ld. Trial Court, after analysing the evidence and considering the matter, came to the conclusion that there was no grave and sudden provocation andtheweaponused was dangerous,however,no case was made out under Section 307, IPC.

12. Hence, vide the impugned judgment dated 3rd November, 2014, both the Respondents/accused persons were convicted for offences under Section

326/34, IPC, in the following terms:

“Both the accused in their statements have claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The incident had taken place, when the accused persons struck against Rafiq, on which, he askedthemtobecarefulandsuddenly,accusedMukesh, son of Ramji Lal caught hold Rafiq and accused Mukesh, son of Babu Sahab gave a knife blow in the abdomen of Rafiq. Accused persons were apprehended at the spot and they were handed over to the police by the public persons. Except about the recovery of knife, sealing and seizing of the same by the police, all the witnesse