Nearly 16 years after acquittal, two men convicted by Delhi HC for injuring person

New Delhi, Aug 26 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has reversed the acquittal of two men after around 16 years and convicted them for intentionally hurting a person on his head, resulting in 21 stitches.

The high court said the trial court had fallen into the error of disbelieving the testimony of the injured person and in observing that it was in contradiction with the statement of another prosecution witness.

It set aside the trial court’s October 2008 judgment acquitting Mohit Kumar and Sandeep Kumar of the offence under Section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court’s acquittal order was challenged by the prosecution on the ground that the testimonies of the witnesses proved the incident beyond reasonable doubts.

Overturning the acquittal, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “To conclude, it is proved from the consistent testimony of the complainant, which is corroborated by independent circumstances, that the accused used a sharp-edged weapon to attack the complainant, resulting in a deep wound on his head which required 21 stitches, though opined as simple.”

“A person hitting a victim on his head with a sharp pointing weapon would do so with the knowledge and intention that such an attack or injury on the head of the victim is likely to result in death of a person,” she said.

According to the prosecution, an FIR was registered in 2006 on a complaint that the two accused went to complainant Maninder Gautam, abused and threatened him and then hit him with a sharp object resulting in a serious wound on his head.

He started bleeding and became unconscious and was taken to a hospital where he received 11 stitches on his head, the prosecution said.

Later, the weapon of the offence, a nail cutter, was recovered at the instance of the accused, it added.

The high court, however, said it has to be necessarily concluded that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two men had intentionally inflicted injury on the head of the injured with an intent and knowledge that such injury could result in death.

The high court listed the matter for August 30 for arguments on pronouncing sentence to the convicts.