State vs Ashish Kumar

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 04 May, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 17 July, 2026
+ CRL. A. 305/2021
STATE
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
[through its Standing Counsel (Crl.)] .....Appellant
Through: Ld. APP for State with Insp Sharad
Kumar Bishnoi, SHO, PS- Subzi
Mandi Railway Station.
versus
ASHISH KUMAR
S/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar
R/o H.No.20, Gali No.2,
G-Block, Andha Mugal,
Pratap Nagar, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Raaj Malhotra, Advocate Amicus.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Criminal Appeal under Section 377(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” ) has been preferred by
the Appellant, State against the Judgment dated 10.01.2020 vide which the
Respondent, Mr. Ashish Kumar was convicted for the offences under
Sections 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( hereinafter referred
to as “IPC” ) and Order on Sentence dated 18.01.2020 whereby the
Respondent was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the
period of 5 years for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC and fine of
CRL. A. 305/2021 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.07.2026
17:05:03

Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 3 months . The Respondent was also
sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of 5 years for the
offence under Section 394 of the IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in
default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of
3 months .
2. Briefly stated , the case of the Prosecution is that vide General Diary
(GD) No. 04A, information was received regarding amputation of the leg of
one person namely, Aman who was run over by a train near Sanjay Nagar,
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. The GD entry was marked to Assistant Sub-Inspector
( ASI ) Ratan Singh, who along with Constable Saurav, went to the alleged
place of occurrence, but found none present. The injured had already been
taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines in a PCR Van. Thereafter, they reached
the Trauma Centre, where the MLC of the injured Aman, was collected.
3. The injured was in severe pain and was not in a fit condition to make
any statement. Accordingly, General Diary No. 04A, was kept pending.
4. On 19.09.2018 , ASI Ratan Singh went to the residence of the injured
at Sonipat, where his statement was recorded. The injured Aman stated that
he is a permanent resident of Sonipat and was pursuing his studies at
Hansraj College, Delhi and he used to travel regularly between Sonipat and
Delhi by train. On 14.09.2018 , at about 11:40 A.M., after attending his
classes, he was returning to his residence by Paschim Vihar Express train.
He was standing near the entrance of the train and was using his mobile
phone, when suddenly the Respondent, Ashish Kumar who was travelling in
the same coach, suddenly snatched his mobile phone. As he resisted the
snatching of the phone, he was allegedly pushed out of the moving train.
CRL. A. 305/2021 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.07.2026
17:05:03

Aman fell on the railway track and his leg came under the wheels of the
train. The Respondent, however, fled from the spot with his mobile phone.
He further stated that he would be able to identify the Respondent, if
produced before him.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the injured, FIR No.
24/2018 was registered under Sections 392 and 394 of the IPC, at Police
Station Subzi Mandi Railway Station.
6. During the course of investigation, on 22.09.2018 , ASI Ratan Singh,
Constable Saurav, along with the injured, as they were going towards the
alleged place of occurrence, they noticed the Respondent standing near
Majar near Hanuman Mandir, Sub-Way, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. On the
identification by the injured, the Respondent was apprehended by the Police
Officials. However, nothing was recovered from his possession.
7. After completion of the investigation, Charge-Sheet for the offences
under Sections 392/394 of the IPC was filed before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance of the statutory requirements, the
case was committed to the Court of Session, for trial.
8. Thereafter, charges were framed against the Respondent for the
offences under Sections 392/394 of the IPC ; in the alternative, under
Section 307 of the IPC, vide Order dated 27.05.2019. The Respondent
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. The Prosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1 , Aman, injured
reiterated the incident, as narrated in his statement Ex.PW1/A , to the Police.
10. PW-2, Sh. Satish Kumar the father of the injured and PW-3, Smt.
Poonam , mother of the injured, corroborated with the version of the injured
son.
CRL. A. 305/2021 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.07.2026
17:05:03

11. PW-6 , Dr. Pramod Kumar proved the MLC bearing No. 10702/2018
as Ex. PW6/A, of the injured. PW-4, Dr. Ritesh Anand proved the discharge
summary of the injured dated 18.09.2018 as Ex. PW4/A .
12. PW-5 , ASI Ratan Singh , Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the
investigations undertaken by him and also the arrest of the respondent.
13. The statement of the Respondent was recorded under Section 313 of
the CrPC, wherein he stated that he is innocent and that he has been falsely
implicated in this case.

14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after appreciating the rival
contentions of the parties vide Judgment dated 10.01.2020, convicted the
Respondent for the offences under Sections 392/294 of the IPC.
Consequently, by Order on Sentence dated 18.01.2020, the Respondent
was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of 5 years
for the offence under Section 392 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default
of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3
months . The Respondent was also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for
the period of 5 years for the offence under Section 394 IPC and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 3 months .
15. However, the Respondent was acquitted for the offence under
Section 307 of the IPC.
16. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the Respondent under Section 307 of
the IPC, vide Judgment dated 10.01.2020 the Appellant, State has filed the
present Appeal under Section 377(3) of the CrPC.
17. The Grounds of Challenge are that the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 307 of the IPC, as all the
CRL. A. 305/2021 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.07.2026
17:05:03

prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. The
Respondent has been wrongly acquitted under Section 307 of the IPC.
18. It was asserted that one of the ingredients for convicting a person for
the offence under Sections 307 of the IPC is “ knowledge ”. It is proved from
the testimony of the injured that the Respondent had pushed him out of a
running train and had complete knowledge that, such act of his may cause
death of the injured. Thereby, he ought to have been convicted under
Section 307 of the IPC. Reliance is placed on Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju v.
State of Rajasthan , (2013) 8 SCC 599.
19. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the Respondent, wherein
it was submitted that the judgment of the learned ASJ was well-reasoned
and did not merit any interference.
Submissions Heard and Record Perused.
20. In the present case, the Respondent has been convicted for the
offences under Sections 392/394 of the IPC, however, has been acquitted
under Section 307 of the IPC. The State is aggrieved by the acquittal of
the Respondent under Section 307 of the IPC.
21. In order to appreciate the grounds of challenge that have been raised
in the present Appeal, it would be pertinent to understand the scope of
Section 307 of the IPC
22. Section 307 of the IPC , reads as under:
“307. Attempt to murder. —
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if
hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
CRL. A. 305/2021 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.07.2026
17:05:03

be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life
convicts. — When any person offending under this section is
under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is
caused, be punished with death.”

23. Thus , in order to constitute an offence under 307 of the IPC, the most
important ingredient is the intent or knowledge to cause the injury, by which
act death can be caused. Under Section 307of the IPC, the offence of
attempt to murder is committed, irrespective of the injury caused to the
injured, so long as the requisite mens rea , i.e. the intention or knowledge as
defined under the said Section, is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
24. In the case of Hari Singh versus Sukhbir Singh , (1988) 4 SCC 551,
the Supreme Court emphasized that intention or knowledge is an essential
precondition for attracting the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
Without these ingredients being established, there can be no offence of
attempt to murder. The intention is to be gathered from all the circumstances
and not merely from the consequences that ensue.
25. Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in the case of
Sarju Prasad versus State of Bihar , 1964 SCC OnLine SC 236, wherein it
was held that unless the prosecution proves the requisite intention under
Section 307 of the IPC, there can be no conviction under the said Section.
26. In Vasant Vithu Jadhav versus State of Maharashtra , AIR 2004
Supreme Court 2678 , the Supreme Court reiterated that the court, “ the Court
has to consider whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention or knowledge to murder a person .”
27. In the light of the aforesaid law, it would be pertinent to refer to the
circumstances in which the alleged incident happened.
CRL. A. 305/2021 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.07.2026
17:05:03

28. The sole eye-witness to the alleged incident was PW-1 , Aman Kumar ,
the injured. He had deposed that on 14.09.2018, after attending his college at
about 11:40 AM, he had boarded the train to return to his house at Sonipat.
While he was standing near the gate of the train and holding his mobile
phone, suddenly the Respondent, Ashish Kumar , came near him and tried to
snatch the phone out of his hand. The injured, however, resisted the act of
the Respondent and held his mobile phone tightly, whereafter, the accused
gave him a push and as a result the injured fell from the running train, as a
result, his right leg was run over by the running train.
29. PW-1 had further explained in his cross-examination that when he
fell, his mobile phone also fell from his hand, which was subsequently
picked up by the Respondent, who ran away with the same.
30. From these facts stated hereinabove, it emerges is that while
attempting to commit the robbery, the Respondent, had pushed the injured,
who fell from the running train. It cannot be overlooked that the injured was
standing at the door holding his mobile phone, and the push was essentially
for the purpose of snatching the phone out of the hand of the injured and not
with an intent to cause injury which could lead to his death.
31. From the testimony of PW-1 , it is established that the push given by
the Respondent to the injured, was with the sole intention of robbing the
mobile phone and not with an intent to cause any injury . The learned
Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the only intention
proved on the part of the Respondent, was to illegally take away the mobile
phone out of the hand of the injured, and not to murder or kill him.
32. It had also been observed that the injured may have suffered grievous
injury i.e. amputation of his leg, but any injury caused during committing
CRL. A. 305/2021 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.07.2026
17:05:03

the offence of robbery, is punishable under Section 392 and 394 of the IPC.
The same is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 307 of the
IPC.
33. The Respondent has, therefore, been rightly acquitted for offence
under 307 of the IPC. There is no infirmity in the Judgment of learned
Additional Sessions Judge.

34. There is no merit in the present Appeal which is hereby, dismissed
in the aforesaid terms.

35. Pending Application(s), if any, are also disposed of.


(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2026/ R
CRL. A. 305/2021 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.07.2026
17:05:03