Back
High Court of Delhi
S.P. GARG, J.
Paramjit Singh
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
CRL. A. No. 1215 of 2011
Decided on: 04-07-2014
Common Intention - Attempt to Murder - Sections 307/34 IPC - The court discussed the testimonies of witnesses, medical evidence, and the presence of the appellant at the crime scene. It concluded that the appellant shared common intention with the co-accused to inflict injuries to the victim, leading to his conviction under Sections 307/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the judgment convicting him under Sections 307/34 IPC for attempting to murder the victim by inflicting injuries. The prosecution's case was based on the testimonies of witnesses and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimonies of witnesses, including the victim and other individuals present at the scene, along with medical evidence, supported the prosecution's case. It concluded that the appellant shared common intention with the co-accused to inflict injuries to the victim.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the presence of the appellant at the crime scene, and the establishment of common intention to commit the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness testimonies, the absence of material discrepancies, and the correlation between the testimonies and medical evidence to establish the appellant's involvement and common intention to commit the crime.
Final Decision: The appellant's appeal was disposed of, and his sentence was modified to undergo RI for two years instead of three, considering mitigating circumstances. The Trial Court was directed to verify the appellant's physical incarceration and take necessary action.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. The appellant – Paramjit Singh challenges the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 02.09.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 21/08 arising out of FIR No. 530/05 PS Prashant Vihar by which he was convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC. By an order dated 07.09.2011, he was awarded RI for three years with fine Rs.5,000/-.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as unfolded in the chargesheet during trial was that on 14.06.2005 at about 11.00 P.M. in DDA Shopping Complex, Near Petrol Pump, Sector 16, the appellant and his associate Padam Thapa (Proclaimed Offender) sharing common intention inflicted injuries to Murari Lal in an attempt to murder him. The victim was taken to Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital (in short ‘BSA Hospital’) and was medically examined. The accused persons were arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded to substantiate the charges. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and Padam Thapa; they were duly charged and brought to trial. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and denied his presence at the spot. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has preferred the appeal. It is relevant to note that Padam Thapa absconded during trial and was declared Proclaimed Offender.
3. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and erred in relying upon the testimonies of the witnesses who were closely associated with the victim. No independent public witness was joined at any stage of the investigation. The main culprit Padam Thapa has since been declared Proclaimed Offender. The prosecution was unable to bring on record any cogent evidence to infer that the appellant shared common intention with him (Padam Thapa) to inflict injuries to the victim. The rope allegedly put around the victim could not be recovered. No injury by it was found on his body. Learned Add. Public Prosecutor urged that there are no cogent reasons to disbelieve the credible and reliable testimony of the victim which has been corroborated by independent public witnesses.
4. Soon after the incident at around 11.00 P.M., the police machinery was set in motion and Daily Diary (DD) No.46 (Ex.PW-7/A) was recorded in promptitude at 11.25 P.M. on getting information about the stabbing incident at the liquor shop. The victim was taken to BSA Hospital immediately and was medically examined by MLC (Ex.PW-4/A) where the arrival time of the patient recorded is 11.35 P.M. The victim was brought with the alleged history of ‘assault’. Since the victim Murari Lal was unable to make statement, the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant – Baldev Singh’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A). Rukka (Ex.PW-9/A) was sent at 03.40 A.M. Apparently there was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. In the complaint (Ex.PW-2/A), Baldev Singh gave vivid description of the incident and narrated as to how and under what circumstances, the injuries were inflicted to Murari Lal by the assailants sharing common intention. While appearing as PW-1, the victim – Murari Lal gave detailed account of the incident. He deposed that initially an altercation had taken place with the assailants over change of quarter-bottle whisky, the seal of which was found broken. However, due to intervention of the manager - B.Sumana, the bottle was changed. The victim further disclosed that at around 11.00 P.M. when he and his other colleagues - Baldev Singh, Satish Kumar and B.Sumana had come out of the liquor shop to go to their respective houses, the assailants came armed with daggers. When he tried to make them understand, Padam Thapa stabbed him and the appellant who had a plastic ‘rope’ put it around his neck. He was taken to BSA Hospital and was medically examined. His blood stained shirt (Ex
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
