The Delhi High Court has recently overturned acquittal of two men and convicted them after over 15 years for intentionally inflicting injury on a man's head with a sharp object that could have resulted in his death.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside the acquittal order passed by the trial court on October 01, 2008, and convicted both the accused persons for the offences under Section...
The Delhi High Court has recently overturned acquittal of two men and convicted them after over 15 years for intentionally inflicting injury on a man's head with a sharp object that could have resulted in his death.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside the acquittal order passed by the trial court on October 01, 2008, and convicted both the accused persons for the offences under Section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The FIR was registered in 2006 on the complaint of the victim who became unconscious due to the attack and received 21 stitches on his head.
The acquittal order was challenged by the prosecution on the grounds that the testimonies of the witnesses proved the incident beyond reasonable doubts and that the trial court overlooked that the inability of the complainant to identify the weapon of offence was understandable as he had been hit on his head from behind.
Justice Krishna observed that the incident and the injury suffered by the complainant stood established beyond doubt in view of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The court also said that the manner in which the injury was caused to the complainant was fully proven by the prosecution.
“…it is proved from the consistent testimony of the complainant which is corroborated by independent circumstances, that that the accused used a sharp-edged weapon to attack the complainant, resulting in a deep wound on his head which required 21 stitches, though opined as Simple,” the court said.
It added that a person hitting a victim on his head with a sharp pointing weapon would do so with the knowledge and intention that such attack or injury on the head of the victim is likely to result into death of a person.
“From the aforesaid discussion, it has to be necessarily concluded that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two respondents had intentionally inflicted injury on the head of the injured with an intent and knowledge that such injury could result in death. The offence under Section 308/34 of the IPC, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution,” the court said.
The matter will now be heard for arguments on sentencing on August 30.
Title: STATE v. MOHIT KUMAR & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 934