Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Raj Kumar @ Pradeep - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 35 of 2016
Decided On : 25-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia and Ms. Rimpy Rohilla.
For the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP.

A court may convict an accused for a minor offence under Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even if the charge was framed for a major offence, provided both are cognate offences and the findings of fact support the ingredients of the lesser crime.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 222, 232 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 326, 34 - Conviction for minor offence under Section 222 CrPC - When a person is charged with a major offence, the court may convict for a minor offence if the main ingredients are common and the act constitutes a cognate offence - Non-compliance with Section 232 CrPC regarding acquittal does not vitiate proceedings unless substantial prejudice is shown to the accused. (Paras 8, 35, 36)

(B) Evidence Act - Testimony of injured witnesses - Evidentiary value - The testimony of an injured witness is accorded special status as their presence at the scene of the crime is inherently guaranteed and they are unlikely to falsely implicate innocent parties - Court must rely on such testimony unless there are material contradictions. (Para 28)

(C) Appeal - Scope - Appellate courts should not interfere with factual findings unless there is perversity or clear misappreciation of evidence, especially when medical evidence corroborates the testimony of injured witnesses. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for attempted murder under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code based on a struggle where sharp-edged weapons were used during a financial dispute. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the witnesses had ulterior motives, the investigation was flawed, and that no such intent to commit murder existed.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the prosecution failed to establish the specific intent or gravity required for a conviction under Section 307, the evidence clearly proved the commission of grievous hurt under Section 326. The injury-sustained witnesses were found credible, and their medical reports corroborated the nature of injuries as grievous causing facial disfigurement.

Issues: Whether the appellate court could convict the accused for a minor offence under Section 326 when the charge framed was specifically for Section 307, and whether the testimony of injured witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction despite allegations of personal motive.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of intent to commit murder as required under Section 307, but given the proven act of causing grievous hurt with a sharp weapon, the court is empowered under Section 222 CrPC to convict for the minor offence of Section 326. The consistency of injured witnesses, supported by medical evidence, overrides claims of false implication.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction for Section 307 set aside and modified to Section 326 IPC; sentence reduced accordingly.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and trial court conviction background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10)
2. summary of appellate arguments and scope of judicial review. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. summarization of witness testimonies and evidentiary record. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. evaluation of external quashing orders and credibility of dispute resolution claims. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. evidentiary weight of injured witnesses and medical corroboration. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. legal requirements for converted conviction under section 326 ipc via section 222 crpc. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. final appellate decision and modification of sentence. (Para 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused no. 1 (A1) in SC No. 33/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment and order on sentence dated 26.09.2015 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that on 23.03.2013 at about 10:30 p.m., at U.T. Block Chowk, Mangol Puri, Delhi, both the accused persons, namely, A1 and A2, caused grievous injuries toPW8 and PW9 with a sharp-edged weapon on their faces and other body parts with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, had death been caused, they would have been guilty of murder. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC.

3. On the basis of Ext.PW7/A FIS/FIR of PW12, given on 24.03.2013, Crime no. 199/2019, Mangol Puri Police Station, that is, Ext.PW2/B FIR was registered by PW2, Head Constable. PW10, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation into the crime, the charge-sheet/final report was filed alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections. Although A2 was chargesheeted, he appears to have absconded and hence from the records, it is seen that vide order dated 23.05.2014, he was declared a proclaimed offender, which was apparently before the case was committed to the Court of Session.

4. When A1 was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 23.05.2014, the matter was committed under Section 209 Cr.PC to the Sessions Court concerned for trial.

5. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 16.07.2014, framed a Charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 13were examined, and Exts. PW1/1, PW1/A-B, PW2/1, PW2/A-C, PW3/1, PW3/A,PW4/1, PW5/A-B, PW6/A-D, PW7/A-C, PW10/A, PW10/A1 and PW11/A-B were marked in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, A1 was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. A1 denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. A1 claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case by PW12, who is his Tau, due to a previous monetary dispute. He did not cause any injury to anyone.

8. After questioning A1 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. vs. State of Kerala , 2009 (3) KHC 89

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHICHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.Raj Kumar @ Pradeep - AppellantVersusState - RespondentCRL.A. No. 35 of 2016Decided On : 25-05-2026

A court may convict an accused for a minor offence under Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even if the charge was framed for a major offence, provided both are cognate offences and the findings of fact support the ingredients of the lesser crime.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Raj Kumar @ Pradeep - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 35 of 2016
Decided On : 25-05-2026