Recovery of weapon used for crime not essential for conviction: Delhi High Court

Recovery of weapon used for the commission of crime is not a sine qua non (essential condition) for convicting an accused, the Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed [Saleem Khan v State (GNCTD)]..Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the argument that the weapon of offence in a case of attempt to murder/culpable homicide charges, was not recovered has no merit as the testimonies of the complainant and his brother were cogent and consistent. Given the nature and extent of injuries on the victim in the instant case, the single-judge observed that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC were clearly proved against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt."It is noted that the Supreme Court has observed in Rakesh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported as (2021) 7 SCC 188 that recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused," the judgment said..The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal against a 2019 decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The appellant in this case was accused for attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt to complainants Yunus and his brother Sahil. He was convicted for the same and sentenced to 6 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000. He then appealed to the High Court. .The Court noted that the argument made by the appellant, that the testimonies of the complainant and his brother showed material contradiction on the aspect of the time of the incident, was immaterial as the appellant was already known to both the injured persons and their testimonies were consistent on all other aspects of the incident..The appellant had also pointed out that the bloodstained clothes of the complainant were not seized and the PCR Form was not produced but the same was dismissed by the High Court."In view of the fact that the complainant was medically examined within 45 minutes of the incident, the contention bears no merit and is rejected," the Court held. .The appellant had contended that the Investigating Officer had not recorded the statement of any public witness. To this, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sadakat Kotwar and Another v. State of Jharkhand:"As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Considering the case on hand on the aforesaid principles, when the deadly weapon - dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC.”In the present case, the injuries were caused by a knife and on the neck. The nature of the corresponding injury was opined to be grievous. It was deposed by the complainant that earlier also, he was assaulted by the appellant, pursuant to which a complaint was lodged with the police, the Court noted..The Court took note of the pre-existing enmity between the appellant and the complainant, the fact that the complainant had suffered two injuries during the incident, and observed that the nature of the injury was grievous indicating that the appellant had the requisite intention and knowledge that such injuries could have been fatal..The High Court thus concurred with the order of conviction passed by the trial court and upheld it.The Court, however, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. This was keeping in view the fact that the appellant had already undergone about 4 years and 6 months out of the total sentence of 6 years awarded to him, the fine imposed on him had already been deposited. The Court also took note of his satisfactory conduct in jail and the fact that he was responsible for his parents as well as five brothers and sisters..[Read Order]