CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 1 of 27

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 16.09.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 23.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010444452025

+ CRL.A. 980/2025

VIKRANT @ ASHU .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate.

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with

SI Ram Singh and SI Lal Chand, P.S.

S.B. Dairy.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1.In this appeal filed under Section 415 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the B.N.S.S.) read with 374(2) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the sole

accused in Sessions Case No. 484/2023 on the file of the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi,

assails the judgement dated 04.06.2025 and order on sentence

dated 05.06.2025, as per which he has been convicted and

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 2 of 27

sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1872 (the IPC).

2.The prosecution case is that on 09.04.2021, at about

10:30 PM, opposite House No.C-11/42, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi, the

accused stabbed PW3 with a knife and caused multiple grievous

injuries on his chest, abdomen and other parts of his body with

such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that,

had death been caused, he would have been guilty of murder.

Further, on 01.01.2022, he was also declared a Proclaimed

Offender as he failed to appear before the jurisdictional magistrate

despite repeated orders. Hence, as per the chargesheet/final report,

the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable

under Sections 307 and 174A IPC.

3.On the basis of Ext. PW1/A FIS/FIR of PW1given on

10.04.2021, Crime no. 157/2021, Shahbad Dairy police station,

i.e., Ext. PW4/A FIR was registered by PW4, Head Constable.

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 3 of 27

PW14, Assistant Sub-Inspector conducted investigation into the

crime and on completion of the same, filed the chargesheet/final

report alleging commission of the offences punishable under the

aforementioned Sections.

4.When the accused was produced before the

jurisdictional magistrate, all the copies of the prosecution records

were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Vide order dated 24.07.2023, the matter was committed under

Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Court concerned for trial.

5. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order

dated 24.08.2023, framed a Charge under Sections 307 IPC and

174A IPC which was read over and explained to the accused, to

which he pleaded not guilty.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 16 were

examined and Ext. PW1/A-B, Ext. PW3/A, Ext. PW3/DA, Ext.

PW4/A-C, Ext. PW5/A-F, Ext. PW6/A-B, Ext. PW7/A, Ext.

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 4 of 27

PW8/A, Ext. PW11/A-B, Ext. PW13/A, Ext. PW14/A-G, Ext.

PW14/DX-DY and Ext. PW15/A were marked in support of the

case.

7.After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused

was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and

maintained his innocence. He submitted that PW3 is a habitual

offender and used to harass his bhabhi (sister- in-law), namely, the

wife of DW1. There existed a dispute between PW3 and DW1.

Therefore, in connivance with the police officials, he has been

falsely implicated in the present case by PW3.

8.After questioning the accused 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

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 5 of 27

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 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker

2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of

Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.

9.DW1 was examined on behalf of the defence. No

documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

10.Upon consideration of the oral and documentary

evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court,

vide the impugned judgement dated 04.06.2025 held the accused

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and

acquitted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offence

punishable under Section 174A IPC. Vide order on sentence dated

05.06.2025, the trial court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment

for a period of 07 years and to fine of ₹50,000/-, and in default of

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 6 of 27

payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of 03

months. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal.

11.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused

submitted that there was no premeditation, intention or knowledge

on the part of the accused, a requisite for attracting the offence

under Section 307 IPC. The accused was walking through the

streets peaking on his mobile phone and using abusive language.

He reacted impulsively when confronted by PW3, thereby

negating any prior intention or preparation to cause the death of

the latter. It was also submitted that the incident was the result of a

sudden and spontaneous altercation, as there was no prior enmity

between the accused and PW3. It was further contended that, at

best, the act of the accused would constitute an offence under

Section 324 IPC, namely, voluntarily causing hurt by means of a

dangerous weapon.

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 7 of 27

12.Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor that the conduct of the accused in leaving the

place of incident, going to fetch a knife and returning within a few

minutes clearly demonstrate an intervening period between the

initial quarrel and the subsequent assault, which would indicate

that the act was not a sudden or spontaneous reaction to the

provocation. It was further submitted that the accused had targeted

vital parts of the body and attempted to stab PW3 repeatedly,

ultimately causing two grievous injuries. The learned prosecutor

also pointed out that the defence taken by the accused that PW3

had been harassing his bhabhi was never put to the latter during his

cross examination. It was, therefore, contended that the said plea is

a belated afterthought and cannot be relied upon to explain or

justify the conduct of the accused.

13.Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 8 of 27

14.The only point that arises for consideration in this

appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgement

warranting an interference by this Court.

15.I will first briefly refer to the oral and documentary

evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext.

PW1/A, the FIS/FIR of PW1, the brother of PW1 recorded on

10.04.2021 in Hindi, translated reads thus: “….On 09.04.2021, I

along with my brother Ravi (PW3, the injured), aged 33 years,

returned home after closing our vegetable shop. We brothers sat

together and finished our meal. Thereafter, Ravi (PW3) went down

from the first floor of the building to wash his hands. At about

10:30 P.M., Ajay’s relative Vikrant (the accused), s/o Vinod who

lives in our neighbourhood and who frequently visits the former,

was passing by hurling abuses. My brother Ravi (PW3) told him

that there are daughters and daughters-in-law living here, so don’t

hurl abuses like this. Vikrant retorted by asking Ravi as to who the

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 9 of 27

latter was to question him and that the former would teach him a

lesson (तू कतुझेअभीबताता ). Vikrant went away from there

and returned shortly and attacked my brother with a knife, who

was standing in the street. My brother was injured on the arm and

abdomen. Hearing the commotion, I ran to the place and tried to

catch him, but he fled. I along with my sister Neeraj Kumari

(PW2), rushed my brother Ravi to Ambedkar Hospital, where my

brother is undergoing treatment. Legal action may be taken

against Vikrant (the accused) who inflicted injury to my brother by

stabbing him with a knife.”

16.PW3, the injured, when examined before the trial court,

deposed that on 09.04.2021, after closing their vegetable shop, he

along with his brother (PW1) returned home. While they were

having dinner, PW3 went downstairs from the first floor of the

house to bring water. At about 10:30 P.M., the accused was heard

abusing while moving through the gali in front of their house. The

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 10 of 27

accused, a relative of DW1, their neighbour, used to visit latter’s

house frequently and, therefore, was known to them. PW3 further

deposed that he objected to the conduct of the accused and told

him that there are women and families living around and not to use

abusive language (“yahaan par aur bhi bahu-betiyan rehti hain, tu

aise gaaliyan mat de”). Hearing this, the accused questioned him

and said that he would show him (abbey tu kaun hai, tu ruk main

abhi tujhe bataata hoon)and went away. Thereafter, the accused

returned after some time and attacked him with a knife causing

multiple stab injuries, including injuries on the left side of his

stomach and on his hand, which was done with an intention to kill

him. His brother (PW1) came out of the house and attempted to

apprehend the accused, but the accused fled from the spot.PW3

further deposed that as a result of the stab injuries sustained, he

started bleeding and fell down. His sister (PW2), his brother

(PW1) along with his mother took him to Ambedkar Hospital,

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 11 of 27

Delhi, where he was treated. His sister (PW2), informed the police.

He was operated upon at the hospital and his statement was

recorded by the police.

16.1.PW3, in his cross examination admitted to the existence

of residential houses and shops situated near his house. He also

admitted that there were other persons present in the gali when the

accused was passing by hurling abuses. According to PW3, after

the accused left the spot, the former returned within about five

minutes with a knife. PW3 denied the suggestion that the accused

has been falsely implicated in the present case.

17.PW1, the brother of PW3, when examined before the

trial court, fully supported the prosecution story. During the

examination-in-chief, the prosecutor is seen to have sought the

permission of the court to put a leading question to the witness.

This request was allowed by the trial court. On being questioned

by the prosecutor, PW1 admitted that because of the stab injuries,

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 12 of 27

PW3 was bleeding and that he along with PW2 and his mother had

shifted PW3 to the hospital.

17.1.PW1, in his cross examination, deposed that the

accused was using abusive language (gaaliyan) while speaking on

his phone at which time the latter was standing in front of their

house. No neighbours were present at that time. The accused

continued abusing for about 4 to 5 minutes. The accused initially

left the spot and returned after about 5 minutes. He went

downstairs to save PW3 when the accused was assaulting PW3

with a knife. By the time he reached the scene, the accused had

caused injuries on the stomach and hand of PW3. He intervened

and saved PW3, where after the accused fled from the spot. PW1

denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the

accused was not present at the spot or that he was not present at the

spot.

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 13 of 27

18.PW2, the sister of PW3, when examined, fully supported

the prosecution case. PW2, in her cross examination, deposed that

other persons were present at the spot when she reached the scene

and found PW3 bleeding due to the stab injuries. There were about

10 to 15 people present at the scene.

19.PW7, Chief Medical Officer, Baba Saheb Ambedkar

hospital, Rohini, Delhi deposed that she had been deputed by the

Medical Superintendent to depose on behalf of Dr.Chitranjan

Kumar, CMO and Dr. Adarsh, JR(Casualty) who had left the

services of the hospital and whose present address was not known.

According to PW7, she is acquainted with the handwriting and

signature of Dr.Chitranjan Kumar, CMO and Dr. Adarsh,

JR(Casualty), having seen them writing and signing during the

course of discharge of their official duties. PW7 identified the

handwriting and signatures of Dr.Chitranjan Kumar and Dr.

Adarshin the MLC. PW7 further deposed that she had seen MLC

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 14 of 27

No. 18606 pertaining to PW3. As per the said MLC, the patient

had been brought to the Casualty with a history of stab wound over

the left flank, involving the chest and abdomen, and over the left

arm, sustained about half an hour prior to the examination. The

MLC of PW3 has been marked as Ext. PW7/A. PW7 further

deposed that the injured was referred to Senior Resident (SR)

(Surgery). The blood stained clothes of the injured, namely, his

shirt and baniyan, were sealed with the seal of the hospital and

handed over to the police along with the sample seal. PW7 further

deposed that in Ext. PW7/A MLC, the Senior Resident

(SR)(Surgery) has opined the nature of the injuries as

“dangerous”. PW7, in her cross examination, admitted that she

had not personally examined the injured.

20. PW8, Medical Superintendent, Surgery and Allied

Branches, Baba Saheb Ambedkar hospital, deposed that he had

been deputed by the Medical Director to depose on behalf of Dr.

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 15 of 27

(Ms.) Abida, Senior Resident (Surgeon), who had left the services

of the hospital and whose present address is not known. According

to PW8, he is acquainted with the handwriting and signature of

Dr.Abida, having seen her write and sign during the course of

discharge of her official duties. PW8 identified the handwriting

and signature of Dr.Abida in the MLC. PW8 further deposed that

he had seen MLC No. 18606 pertaining to the injured. PW8 further

deposed that as per Ext. PW7/A MLC, the patient had been

referred to the Senior Resident (Surgery) by the Casualty Medical

Officer for further medical treatment and necessary action.

Dr.Abida, as per the MLC, had given her opinion regarding the

nature of the injury on 26.07.2021.As per the clinical examination,

radiologist’s opinion and discharge summary, i.e., Ext. PW8/A, the

nature of the injury was “dangerous”. PW8, in his cross

examination, admitted that he had not personally examined the

injured.

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 16 of 27

21.DW1, when examined, deposed that the accused is the son

of his uncle (Tauji). PW3, the brother of PW1, is a drunkard and

used to often create ruckus in the nearby area. PW3 on several

occasions made indecent comments against his wife. He had

complained regarding the same to the family members of PW3.

PW3 used to pick up quarrels with the residents of the nearby area.

Several criminal cases are pending against PW3, as he was

involved in gambling and selling of liquor. DW1 further deposed

that he had informed the police about PW3, as the latter used to

extend threats that he would get them falsely implicated in a case.

According to DW1, on 09.04.2021, at about 08:00 -08:30 P.M.,

after informing the police, Vikrant (the accused) left the spot along

with the former’s wife for Shahbad Dairy market. He too had left

his house to collect money and, when he returned, he found a big

crowd gathered there. The police had inquired with him as he had

been named by PW1. Thereafter, PW1 named the accused.

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 17 of 27

22.DW1, in his cross examination, deposed that he has been

working as a sweeper in Delhi Jal Board and that he leaves for his

work at 04:00 P.M. and returns at 08:00 A.M. on the following day.

He has been working in the same shift since his employment with

the Delhi Jal Board. No action had been taken by the police on his

complaint. On being asked whether he had made any complaint to

any senior police officer or to the Court when no action was taken

on his complaint, DW1 answered in the negative. DW1 was unable

to give the details of the criminal cases stated to be pending against

PW3.

23.Section 307 IPC deals with the offence of attempt to

commit murder. The essential ingredients required to be proved in

the case of an offence under 307 are:- (i) that the death of a human

being was attempted; that such death was attempted to be caused

by or in consequence of the act of the accused; and that such act

was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 18 of 27

with the intention of causing such bodily injury as; (a) the accused

knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused

attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so

imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a)

death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the

accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such

death or injury.

23.1.A person commits an offence under Section 307, when

he has an intention to commit murder and, in pursuance of that

intention, does an act towards its commission irrespective of the

fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not. It is to be clearly

understood, however, that the intention to commit the offence of

murder means that the person concerned has the intention to do

certain act with the necessary intention or knowledge mentioned in

Section 300. The intention to commit an offence is different from

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 19 of 27

the intention or knowledge requisite for constituting the act as that

offence. The expression “whoever does an act with such intention

of knowledge and under such circumstances that if he, by that act,

caused death, he would be guilty of murder” in Section 307,

simply means that the act must be done with the intent or

knowledge requisite for the commission of the offence of murder.

The expression “by that act” does not mean that the immediate

effect of the act committed must be death. Such a result must be

the result of that act whether immediately or after a lapse of time.

(See Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 72).

23.2.In Sreedharan v. State of Kerala, 1969 SCC OnLine

Ker 46 : 1969 KHC 101, it has been held that the act, namely, the

bare physical act, must be an act capable of causing death, at any

rate, not one intrinsically incapable of causing death. The mental

element or mens rea required is the intention or knowledge

necessary for the offence of murder for which we need to go to

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 20 of 27

Section 300. Intention and knowledge are a man’s state of mind;

direct evidence thereof except through his own confession cannot

be had; and apart from a confession they can be proved only by

circumstantial evidence. They are matters for inference from all

the circumstances of the case such as the motive, the preparations

made, the declarations of the offender, and, in the case of

homicide, the weapon used, the persistence of the assault, and the

nature of the injuries actually inflicted as also their location. In

cases of what are generally described as unpremeditated offences

or as offences committed on the spur of the moment, intention may

be contemporaneous with the physical act, at best of just an instant

before, and is generally to be gathered from the nature and

consequences of the act and the attendant circumstances.

23.3.In Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2004 (13) SCC

189, it has been held that for the purpose of Section 307, what is

material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 21 of 27

of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention.

The Section clearly contemplates an act which is done with

intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the

intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances.

The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is

necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or

knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there

can be no offence ‘of attempt to murder’. Intent which is a state of

mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can

only be detected or inferred from other factors. Some of the

relevant considerations may be the nature of the weapon used, the

place where injuries were inflicted, the nature of the injuries and

the circumstances in which the incident took place. (See also Bipin

Bihari v. State of M.P, 2006 (8) SCC 799 and Anjani Kumar

Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 2014 SC 2740)

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 22 of 27

24.Keeping the aforesaid precedents in mind, I will now

examine whether the evidence on record makes out a case under

Section 307 IPC. The presence of the accused at the time of the

incident, his attack of PW3 and the injuries sustained by PW3 are

certainly established by the materials on record. Nothing has been

brought out to discredit the testimony of PW1 and PW3. Now, the

question is, whether the evidence establishes the requisite intention

or knowledge on the part of the accused so as to attract the offence

of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 IPC. Such

intention or knowledge has to be gathered from the circumstances

in which the incident took place including the nature of the

weapon used, the words uttered by the accused, the part of the

body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries and the manner

and force with which the blows were inflicted. A plain reading of

Ext. PW1/A FIS/FIR of PW1; the testimony of PW1, an

eyewitness, PW2 and PW3, the injured, clearly establish the overt

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 23 of 27

acts attributed to the accused. The materials consistently disclose

that the accused was using abusive language and when confronted

by PW3, the former threatened him, left the spot, came back armed

with a knife and thereafter assaulted and injured PW3 with the said

knife. The intervening act of leaving the spot, procuring a knife

and returning to the place of occurrence is a circumstance relevant

in determining the intention with which the subsequent assault was

committed. It negates the defence plea that the assault was merely

an instantaneous one or on the spur of the moment. The accused

has not been able to demonstrate any material circumstance(s)

which would render the consistent testimony of PW1, PW2 and

PW3 as not credible or unreliable or create a reasonable doubt

regarding the manner in which the assault was committed.

25.The defence plea that the accused had no prior intention

to cause the death of PW3 and that there was no previous

animosity between them, by itself, does not negate the

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 24 of 27

circumstances emerging from the manner in which the assault was

committed. As per Ext. PW7/A MLC, following are the injuries

sustained by PW3:-

“(I) Lacerated wound over left flank (involving chest &

Abdomen) measuring 6cm x 2cm approx.(ii) Lacerated wound

over left Arm measuring 2 cm x 1 cm approx. and 3 cm x 2

cm approx. at the time of medical examination.”

According to the doctor, the injuries sustained are “dangerous”.

This circumstance, coupled with the fact that the accused

attempting to stab PW3 multiple times, mostly targeting the vital

parts of his body, clearly indicates the intention as contemplated

under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the contention raised by the

accused that the act of stabbing was not accompanied by any

intention to cause death does not merit acceptance and is

accordingly rejected.

26.Another defence sought to be raised is that the accused

has been falsely implicated in the present case as PW3, the injured,

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 25 of 27

allegedly wanted to take revenge because of the complaint stated

to have been made by the wife of DW1 on account of PW3 passing

indecent comments against her. However, this defence appears to

be an afterthought. A perusal of the testimony of DW1 shows that

the complaint concerning the alleged indecent remarks was made

about 2 to 3 days of the incident in the case on hand. More

significantly, not even a suggestion to this effect is seen put to

PW3, the injured, or to PW2 or PW1 during their cross-

examination. Accordingly, the defence of false implication on the

ground of alleged retaliation against the complaint made by the

wife of DW1 is devoid of merit and is rejected.

27.Further, it is quite doubtful whether DW1 was present

at the scene as claimed by him. In his cross-examination, he

admitted that his duty time is from 04:00 P.M. till 08:00 A.M. the

next day. The incident as per the FIR is alleged to have taken place

on a Friday at 10:30 P.M. near the house of PW3 as well as the

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 26 of 27

accused. DW1 in his examination does not seem to have a case

that he was on leave on the said day. If so, there was no possibility

of DW1 being present at the scene on the date of the incident.

Hence, the version of DW1 is highly doubtful.

28.Coming to the question of sentence, Section 307 IPC

prescribes punishment of imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to ten years, and also provides for fine.

Where hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender may

be punished with imprisonment for life, or with punishment

hereinbefore mentioned. The trial court has sentenced the accused

to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine

of ₹50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three months. It is also brought to the

notice of this Court that the accused has several criminal

antecedents, including another case registered alleging commission

of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Further, the conduct

CRL.A. 980/2025 Page 27 of 27

of the accused during his incarceration has also not been stated to

be satisfactory, as he is seen involved in multiple incidents while in

jail. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of

the case, I find that a sentence of six years would be appropriate.

29.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The

conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable

under Section 307 IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence is

modified from rigorous imprisonment for 07 years to rigorous

imprisonment for 06 years.

30.Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

(JUDGE)

SEPTEMBER 23, 2026

rs/kd