Delhi High Court upholds conviction in assault case where victim remained in a vegetative state for nine years

On 15 March 2000, police received information regarding a knife-fight involving anti-social elements in Mangolpuri, Delhi, and reached the spot after three injured persons—Amol, Rajesh and Shambhu—had been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital.

Rajesh’s statement led to registration of FIR No. [number not specified] under Sections 308/323/341/34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that Prem Raj, his son Krishan, and Chetan Prakash assaulted the injured persons with stones, bricks and wooden planks; Chetan Prakash was treated as a juvenile, while Prem Raj and Kewal Krishan were tried before the Sessions Court.

Amol had suffered a severe head injury and remained comatose or in a vegetative state throughout the relevant proceedings, and consequently was neither examined during investigation nor cited as a witness.

The Trial Court convicted Prem Raj and Kewal Krishan under Sections 308/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced each to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000 under Section 308/34 IPC, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 323/34 IPC.

Whether the evidence of the injured witnesses, particularly Shambhu, was sufficiently credible to sustain the appellants’ conviction despite Rajesh having turned hostile and despite the non-examination of Amol and Anil.

Whether the medical evidence and the opinion regarding the possibility of Amol’s injury being caused by a brick falling from a height of 20 feet rendered the prosecution’s ocular version inherently improbable or completely unreliable.

Whether the alleged inconsistencies concerning motive, intoxication, lighting, seizure of weapons, timing of the incident, arrest, and absence of independent witnesses created reasonable doubt regarding the appellants’ guilt.

Whether the conviction under Sections 308/34 and 323/34 IPC and the sentences imposed by the Trial Court warranted appellate interference.

The Court applied Sections 308/34 and 323/34 IPC, concerning attempt to commit culpable homicide with common intention and voluntarily causing hurt with common intention, respectively; the prosecution case was assessed on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that motive is not indispensable where the prosecution relies on credible direct or injured-witness testimony, relying on Raghunandan v. State of U.P., Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of U.P., and Chandan v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Under Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. and related authorities, the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries substantial weight because the witness’s presence is intrinsically established, and convincing grounds are required to discredit it.

Medical evidence may displace ocular testimony only where it completely rules out the possibility of the ocular account; a medical opinion indicating merely an alternative possibility cannot override otherwise credible eyewitness evidence.

The Court further applied the principle that non-examination of every witness, absence of independent public witnesses, or defects in investigation do not automatically vitiate a prosecution case founded on reliable evidence.

Section 428 CrPC was applied to preserve the appellants’ entitlement to set-off for pre-conviction detention.

The Court found that Rajesh, although hostile regarding the appellants’ involvement, continued to corroborate the occurrence and his own injuries, as well as the injuries suffered by Shambhu and Amol.

Shambhu’s testimony supplied material ocular evidence implicating the appellants, and his account was considered consistent with the medical evidence.

The opinion of Dr. Mahesh Kaith that Amol’s injury could have resulted from a brick falling from a height of 20 feet was treated as a hypothetical possibility, not as proof that the injury occurred in that manner; the seized stones and wooden plank were capable of causing comparable injuries.

Amol’s non-examination was explained by his prolonged coma and vegetative condition, while Anil’s absence was held inconsequential because no witness established his presence during the assault.

The Court rejected the objections based on alcohol consumption, poor lighting, absence of bloodstains, non-recovery of a particular brick, discrepancy in the time of occurrence, and absence of independent witnesses, holding that these matters did not undermine the core prosecution case supported by the injured witness, DD entries, MLCs and surrounding evidence.

Given the serious and lasting head injury suffered by Amol, the Court found the sentences neither disproportionate nor deserving of reduction.

The sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a ₹25,000 fine under Section 308/34 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a ₹1,000 fine under Section 323/34 IPC was maintained, including the default sentences.

The appellants were directed to surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence and were granted the benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC.