- Dwarka, Delhi
- 9818880502
- sach_truth00@yahoo.com
The case arose from a firing incident that took place on 17 September 2014 near the MCD Toll Plaza, Harewali, Delhi. Two persons, including the primary injured witness Sumit, sustained gunshot injuries. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Manjeet @ Hazari, fired multiple shots using a pistol following a personal dispute, resulting in grievous and life-threatening injuries to the victims.
Case Type
Criminal Law / Attempt to Murder & Arms Act
Date of Decision
08 May 2023
Court
Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Rohini Courts, Delhi
Duration
Nearly 9 years (2014–2023)
Outcome
Accused Convicted under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act
FIR Number
1195/2014, P.S. Narela
The principal challenge before the Court was whether the prosecution could secure conviction under Section 307 IPC despite the fact that several public witnesses turned hostile and the weapon of offence was not recovered. The defence contended that the accused was falsely implicated due to prior enmity and that the case rested solely on the testimony of the injured witness.
The Court examined the settled principle that the testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal and carries inherent credibility. It noted that the presence of the injured witness at the scene was undisputed and was corroborated by medical evidence, contemporaneous records, and investigation material.
The Court further observed that non-recovery of the weapon and hostility of certain witnesses do not weaken the prosecution case when the injured witness’s testimony is consistent, reliable, and supported by medical and forensic evidence. The Court relied upon Supreme Court precedents affirming that convincing evidence is required to discard the testimony of an injured witness.
A conviction for attempt to murder can be sustained primarily on the testimony of a credible injured witness, even if other witnesses turn hostile or the weapon is not recovered. Courts give paramount importance to medical evidence and consistent eyewitness testimony in serious violent offences.
The Court held that the injured witness Sumit had no reason to falsely implicate the accused while sparing the real offender. His version regarding the manner of firing, number of shots, and injuries sustained remained consistent and was duly supported by medical records showing dangerous and grievous gunshot injuries on vital parts of the body.
The Court also drew an adverse inference from the accused’s unexplained absence from the spot immediately after the incident and rejected the defence of false implication as unsubstantiated and contradictory.
The Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, Manjeet @ Hazari, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Court concluded that firing multiple gunshots causing life-threatening injuries clearly attracted the offence of attempt to murder.
