Delhi High Court Upholds Attempt-to-Murder and Robbery Convictions, Maintains Sentences

A bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav heard an appeal against conviction and sentence imposed for offences under Sections 307, 392, 394 and 397 IPC arising from an alleged attack on a police head constable. The appellant challenged the trial court's finding of guilt, contending false implication, impropriety in the test identification parade (TIP) and various lacunae in the prosecution case.

The Court upheld the conviction and the sentences imposed by the trial court, finding that the prosecution proved the appellant's participation beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasised the reliability of the injured witness and the corroboration by medical evidence and identification procedures. The Court noted that the victim "was injured also and the injuries were serious" and accepted that the testimony of an injured witness carried special weight; as the Court observed, "Convicting evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Primarily, it is the intention and/or the knowledge that an act done in a peculiar set of facts and circumstances may have the potential to cause death, is what is of vital importance. Intention or knowledge is something which is abstract but then the same can be inferred with the help of the acts, actions, inactions, utterances, gesture and a combination of all or anything of the nature such as use of weapons, body part which was attacked, single or multiple blows, manner of assault, etc. The Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 551 has discussed as what the court has to see in order to bring a case under Section 307 IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "7. Under Section 307 IPC what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of 'attempt to murder'. Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused."

Background

The dispute arose from two linked incidents in April 2002. On 06.04.2002 police intercepted a car (DL-2CL-6509) and HC Suresh Kumar fired a shot to deflate its tyres during the check; one occupant (Rakesh @ Rahul) was overpowered while the appellant allegedly escaped. On 08.04.2002, while returning from duty, HC Suresh Kumar was accosted near Culvert J.J. Colony, Wazirpur at about 12:30 AM. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and associates attacked the constable, struck him with fists and kicks, and the appellant stabbed him in the abdomen and left thigh with a knife while stating that he was "known as Shantu." The assailants also robbed the victim of his purse, driving licence and mobile phone. The victim reached the nearby Wazirpur Police Post and lodged an FIR; the charge-sheet included offences under Sections 307, 392, 394, 397 and 34 IPC.

At trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, conducted a TIP before a judicial officer in which the victim identified the appellant, and produced medical evidence describing incised and lacerated wounds consistent with a sharp-edged weapon. The appellant denied involvement and alleged false implication, noting that the victim did not describe assailants' physical features and that he had not been arrested at the scene. He also argued that the victim had not sought medical treatment immediately and had instead gone to the police post.

The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to varying terms (including seven years' rigorous imprisonment for Section 307 and additional terms for robbery and related offences) with fines. On appeal the High Court analysed identification, motive, injuries and intention. It applied established precedents holding that the testimony of an injured witness merited special reliance (citing State of U.P. v. Naresh and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.) and referred to authorities on intention under Section 307 (including Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh). The Court found no infirmity in the TIP (which the appellant did not impugn through cross-examination), accepted the victim's account and medical corroboration, and inferred requisite intention from the nature of the assault and use of a knife. The Court rejected the plea of false implication as unsubstantiated and observed that the appellant's post-conviction prison conduct and prior involvement weighed against leniency.

Resultantly, the High Court dismissed the appeal, maintained conviction and sentence and ordered the appellant to surrender forthwith. The judgment directed transmission of its copy to the trial court and the jail superintendent for compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: CRL.A. 811/2003 Case Title: Ajay @ Shantu v. State (NCT of Delhi) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vineet Jain & Ms. Richa Babbar, Advocates with appellant-in-person For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with SI Ajay Kumar, PS Ashok Vihar