Weapon Recovery used for commission of crime not essential for convicting an accused: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court ruled that weapon recovery used for commission of crime is not essential for convicting an accused.
ASI Surender Pal received DD. On receipt of the DD, ASI Surender Pal along with Ct. Jhabar Ram reached at the spot i.e. Purani Chowki, Mustafabad, Delhi. On reaching there, they came to know that the injured had already been removed to GTB Hospital. Thereafter, ASI Surender Pal along with Ct. Jhabar Ram reached GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Yunus S/o Sh. Yusuf wherein the doctor had mentioned ‘physical assault and U/O’. In the meantime, the brother of injured Yusuf namely Sahil also came in the hospital in an injured condition who was also admitted in the hospital by ASI Surender Pal and the doctor had mentioned on his MLC as ‘physical assault fit & U/O sharp’. Thereafter, ASI Surender Pal recorded a statement of injured Yunus wherein he stated that he is the permanent resident of Village Daurala, and along with his family was residing on rent and works as sewing machine mechanic. He along with his brother Sahil was going to buy some medicine and when at about 10.00 PM, they reached at the corner of Block, accused Saleem, assaulted him with a knife on his neck and right shoulder. When Sahil (brother of Yunus) came to rescue him, he was also assaulted by accused Saleem and caused injuries to him. He further narrated that accused Saleem had met him in the daytime and had said ‘tune hamare upar mukadma karaya hai, mai tujhe aaj shaam tak jaan se maar dunga’ and also threatened him. On this, Sahil (brother of Yunus) called at 100 number, PCR van came and took him and his brother Sahil to the GTB hospital.”
Advocate B. Badrinath, appearing for the appellant, contended that the testimony of complainant/Mohd. Yunus is unreliable on account of prior enmity with the appellant, which has been admitted by the complainant himself.
APP for the State, supported the impugned judgment and order. He argued that the testimonies of both Mohd. Yunus and Sahil are consistent with each other and reliable, as both have deposed that they were assaulted by the appellant, who was already known to them.
The single judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the injuries suffered by the complainant, allegedly caused by a chhurri, were inflicted on a vital part of his body i.e. the neck.
The court concurred with the impugned judgment on conviction passed by the Trial Court and accordingly, upheld the impugned judgment.
The court while dismissing the appeal added that keeping in view the appellant’s age, the period of incarceration, his jail conduct for the last one year and other mitigating circumstances, the appellant be released on the period already undergone by him unless required in any other case.
Case title: Saleem Khan v/s The State (govt. of GNCT, Delhi)
Citation: CRL.A. 491/2020
