This criminal appeal arose from a violent dispute between cousin brothers sharing a rented accommodation in Madangir, New Delhi, which began over sharing household rent. The appellant, Asgar @ Pakori, wanted to return to his native place in Mewat, but his co-tenants demanded he pay his share of the rent first, triggering a furious altercation. Enraged, the appellant abused Shahid Ahmed, Mohd. Iqbal, and Zuber Ahmed, picked up a knife, and stabbed Shahid in the chest while shouting threats to kill him. When Mohd. Iqbal and Zuber Ahmed intervened, Iqbal sustained injuries on his arms. The Delhi High Court evaluated whether an offense under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) was legally made out given the single-blow nature of the assault and the lack of independent public witnesses. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the nature of the weapon, the vital body part targeted, the severity of the life-threatening lung injury, and the direct verbal threats sufficiently established the requisite intent to commit murder.
- Background and Procedural History:
- The incident occurred on November 30, 1993, resulting in FIR No. 491/1993 registered at PS Ambedkar Nagar under Section 307/324 IPC.
- The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC on October 7, 1999, sentencing him to 5 years of Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000.
- The initial criminal appeal (CRL.A. 548/1999) was dismissed because the appellant absconded after being granted interim bail in 2001 and was declared a proclaimed offender until his surrender in February 2025.
- Following a remand direction from the Supreme Court via Criminal Appeal No. 2510/2026, the Delhi High Court re-heard and decided the appeal on its merits.
- Arguments by the Appellant:
- The appellant contended that the essential intention or knowledge required under Section 307 IPC was missing, meaning he could at most be convicted for causing simple hurt.
- He argued that all public witnesses were “interested witnesses” being close relatives/brothers of the victim, and criticized the investigation for failing to join independent neighborhood witnesses.
- He claimed the incident happened spontaneously in the heat of the moment during a scuffle near a drain, relying on the judgment Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana.
- Arguments by the State:
- The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) countered that because the incident took place inside a private rented room, independent public witnesses were naturally unavailable.
- The medical evidence (MLC Ex.PW14/A) confirmed that the victim sustained a severe $3 \times 4$ inches sharp-cut wound that pierced his ribs, punctured his left lung, caused a “pneumothorax,” and led to profuse bleeding, which was inherently dangerous and life-threatening.
- Court Observations and Legal Findings:
- Intention and Injury under Section 307 IPC: The Court emphasized that an actual bodily injury is not a mandatory prerequisite ($sine\ qua\ non$) under Section 307 IPC, as the section handles cases with or without resulting hurt. Intention or knowledge can be deduced from surrounding factors like the weapon used, the targeted body part, and explicit verbal utterances.
- Credibility of Related and Injured Witnesses: Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab and Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, the Court held that a related witness is not automatically a “tainted” or “interested” witness unless they derive direct benefit from the litigation. Furthermore, the testimony of an injured witness (such as Mohd. Iqbal) carries a “built-in guarantee of presence” and must be given special legal weight.
- Defective Investigation: Relying on rulings like Muniappan v. State of T.N., the Court ruled that minor lapses or the absence of independent public witnesses cannot override clear, cogent, and trustworthy eyewitness testimony, nor can they distort the administration of justice.
- Falsity of the Defense: The appellant’s alternate theory that everyone fell into a drain was unsupported by any evidence, failed to explain the severe puncture wound on the victim or the injuries on Mohd. Iqbal, and lacked any corresponding injuries on the appellant himself.
- Final Decision:
- The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, dismissed the appeal, and directed the appellant to surrender forthwith to serve the remainder of his sentence, granting him the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the time already spent in custody.
2026 DHC 6132
Asgar @ Pakori v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (D.O.J. 31.07.2026)
