Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandrasekharan Sudha, J
Mohd Talha – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 209/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar, Kshitij Singh, Nujhat Naseem, Sikander, Chirag
For the Respondents: Utkarsh, Harsh Ahuja, Ajay Chouwdhary, Mukul Singh, H. Verma

Section 307 IPC is not a minor offence relative to Section 324 IPC under Section 222 CrPC because the ingredients of attempt to murder differ from those of voluntarily causing hurt with a weapon. An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the lower court’s view is perverse.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 222, 372 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 307, 324 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(2), 47, 67 - Voluntary hurt with dangerous weapon - Admissibility of documentary evidence when the author is unavailable - Requirements under Section 32(2) for admissibility of official records are satisfied when the presence of the author cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense. (Paras 22, 23)

(B) Charge - Alteration of - Scope of Section 222 CrPC - Section 307 is not a minor offence vis-à-vis Section 324 IPC as they lack commonality in essential ingredients, precluding conviction for the former when only the latter is charged. (Paras 29, 31)

(C) Appeal against acquittal - Scope and ambit - Appellate interference is restricted to cases where the findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on a misappreciation of material evidence; a reasonable, plausible view taken by the trial court must be upheld. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, as the injured complainant, challenged the acquittal of the accused persons in a case involving voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. The appellant alleged significant lapses in the investigation, including failure to recover the weapon and examine material witnesses. The appellant further sought the invocation of the court's power to convict the accused under a more severe charge of attempt to murder, despite the framing of the initial charge under a less severe offence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that medical evidence categorized the injuries as lacerations, typically associated with blunt force, which contradicted the complainant's assertion of having been assaulted with a sharp-edged weapon. Further, the court held that Section 307 IPC cannot be deemed a minor offence relative to Section 324 IPC under the criteria stipulated in Section 222 CrPC. The investigative defects, compounded by the absence of corroborative eyewitness testimony and inconsistent medical findings, sustained the trial court’s conclusion.

Issues: Whether the appellate court has the authority to upgrade a charge to a more severe offence under Section 222 CrPC, and whether the acquittal rendered by the trial court was perverse in light of alleged technical and investigative shortfalls.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that a higher offence cannot be treated as a 'minor offence' for the purpose of invoking Section 222 CrPC if the ingredients are distinct. Furthermore, in appeals against acquittal, the appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the prevailing judgment is found to be demonstrably perverse or illegal.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution case and trial acquittals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. parties' contentions regarding evidentiary discrepancies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. analysis of witness testimonies and investigation proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. evaluation of evidence and investigative deficiencies. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. admissibility of documentary evidence under section 32 evidence act. (Para 22)
6. distinction between major and minor offences under section 222 crpc. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. standard for interfering with an acquittal judgment. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by PW2, the injured in Sessions Case No. 6988/2016 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi, assailing the judgment dated 27.09.2017 as per which the first accused (A1) and second accused (A2) have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that on 31.12.2011 at about 01:30 PM, near H. No. 31/1, Ward No. 1, Mehrauli, New Delhi, A1 and A2, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused injury to PW2 with a knife, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR of PW2, given on 31.12.2011, Crime No. 02 of 2012, Mehrauli Police Station, that is, Ext. PW1/A FIR was registered by PW1, Head Constable (HC). PW6 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the offence punishable under the aforesaid Section.

4. When A1 and A2 were produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 27.08.2012, the matter was committed under Section 323 Cr.PC to the Sessions Court concerned for trial along with the counter case/cross case, i.e., FIR No. 01/12. On appearance of the accused persons and after hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated 11.11.2014, framed a Charge under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to both A1 and A2, to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined and Ext. PW 1/A-B, Ext. PW 2/A, Ext. PW 3/A-G & 3/DA, Ext. PW 4/A, Ext. PW 6/A-B were marked.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, both A1 and A2 were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence led by the prosecution. They denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. It was submitted by both A1 and A2 that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that counter case/cross case, i.e., FIR No. 01/2012 alleging offence punishable under Section 307 IPC has been registered against PW2 and his family members for having assaulted and injured them. The present FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the said case.

7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by A1 and A2 in support of their case.

8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2017, acquitted both A1 and A2 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved, PW2 has preferred this appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/PW2 submitted that there exist material lapses on the part of PW6, the Investigating Officer (IO), like deliberate failure to record statements of certain material witnesses such has PW2’s aunt; non-inspection of the scene of crime, no efforts being made by the IO to recover the weapon of offence used to injure PW2. However, the defective investigation cannot be a ground t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIChandrasekharan Sudha, JMohd Talha – AppellantVersusState NCT of Delhi – RespondentCRL.A. 209/2019

Section 307 IPC is not a minor offence relative to Section 324 IPC under Section 222 CrPC because the ingredients of attempt to murder differ from those of voluntarily causing hurt with a weapon. An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the lower court’s view is perverse.

Cases Referred (9)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandrasekharan Sudha, J
Mohd Talha – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 209/2019