* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 08.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: -16.04.2026 + CRL.A. 13/2018 SONU LAKRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Archit Upadhayay, Advocate (DHCLSC).

versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.PC.), the sole accused in SC No. 27228/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, assail the judgment dated 09.10.2017 and the order on sentence dated 28.10.2017 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 29.09.2012 at about

7:30 PM, in front of the house of one Babu at Pusta Gopalpur, Delhi, the accused, along with Monu (a CCL), in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained PW3, abused and assaulted him, and while the CCL caught hold of PW3, the accused with a knife stabbed him on the left side of his chest, with such intention and under such circumstances that, had death been caused, he would have been guilty of committing murder. Accordingly, as per the charge-sheet/final report dated 30.11.2012, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR of PW3 recorded at Sushruta Trauma Centre on 29.09.2012, Crime No. 214/2012, Timarpur Police Station, i.e., Ext. PW8/B FIR dated 29.09.2012 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was registered by PW8, Head Constable. PW10, Sub Inspector conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report dated 30.11.2012 alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. The jurisdictional Magistrate after complying with the formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.PC, committed the case to the Court of Sessions concerned. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 08.02.2013, framed a Charge under Section 307 read with 34 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 10 and CW1 were examined and Exhibits PW1/A-D, PW2/A-F, PW3/A, PW4/DA, PW5/A, PW6/A, PW7/A-B, PW8/A-C, and PW9/A-B, CW1/A, CW1/C, CW1/D and PX, were marked in support of the prosecution case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further alleged that PW3 and his family members have been continuously threatening to kill him and his family after registration of the case and during trial. The police officials of Timarpur Police Station have also been harassing him.

7. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b)

Cr.PC, compliance of Section 232 Cr.PC was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.PC 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. vs.

State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.PC has caused any prejudice to him.

8. No documentary evidence was adduced in support of the defence case.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 09.10