Conviction for Attempted Murder Is Upheld; Appeal Dismissed by Delhi High Court

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha heard an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a trial court's 2017 conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) arising from an incident in Dakshinpuri, New Delhi; the judgment was pronounced on February 6, 2026.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The judge held that the injured witness's testimony was reliable, and that her statement, contemporaneous acts and scientific corroboration collectively established the requisite intention or knowledge for an offence under Section 307 IPC. The Court noted the appellant's contemporaneous utterance that, in translation, amounted to a threat — "agar main uski nahi ho saki, toh kisi ki nahi ho paongi" — and treated it as reflecting his state of mind. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, that is, attempt to commit murder. To prove an offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the act was done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death had been caused, the act would amount to murder. The intention or knowledge of the accused has to be gathered from the nature of the weapon used, the manner of its use, the part of the body aimed at and the surrounding circumstances, including the conduct and words spoken by the accused at the time of the occurrence. In the present case, the prosecution rests primarily on the testimony of PW1, who is the injured witness. It is well settled that the testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value. A conviction can be solely based on the testimony of an injured witness, provided the same inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy. PW1's testimony, when read as a whole, does not suffer from any inherent improbability or material inconsistency."

Background The prosecution case was that on March 10, 2015, at about 8:30 PM, the accused called the injured witness (PW1) to the street outside her house, produced a country-made pistol and fired at her after saying that if she could not be his, she would not be anyone's. The bullet passed through the sleeve of her sweater and grazed her left forearm; PW1 lodged a complaint the same day. Police recovered a country-made pistol, a bag and the sweater from the scene; the weapon was sent to FSL. The trial court framed charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and after the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced documentary evidence, convicted the accused on July 26, 2017 and sentenced him on August 10, 2017 to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 (15 days simple imprisonment in default).

On appeal, the accused contended that he was falsely implicated due to a personal dispute and that the act, which only caused a minor forearm injury and a hole in the sweater, did not disclose the intention or knowledge necessary for Section 307. The State relied on ocular testimony of PW1, eyewitness accounts of bystanders who reached the spot shortly after firing, seizure memos, photographs, medical records and the FSL report. The FSL ballistic expert testified that the recovered pistol was in working order and test-firing succeeded; although he could not conclusively match the recovered cartridge to the pistol, gunshot residue particles were detected on the hole in the sweater. The High Court examined the totality of evidence, held that the injured witness's testimony was consistent and trustworthy, found scientific corroboration in the FSL report and observed that absence of grievous injury or independent eyewitness to the actual firing did not vitiate the case. The Court followed settled principles on Section 307 and on reliance upon injured witness testimony and dismissed the appeal. No interim directions were issued and no further liberty was recorded.

Case Details: Case No.: CRL.A. 860/2017 Case Title: Sh. Ajay Singh Negi v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Choudhary; Ms. Nikita Paik; Ms. Deepika, Advocates For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Gahlot, APP for the State