'Daredevil Attack': 23 Yrs On, Delhi High Court Upholds Man's Conviction For Stabbing Policeman Who Intercepted Him
More than two decades after a “daredevil attack” on a police officer, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of a man who stabbed a head constable in retaliation for being intercepted during a prior police operation.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and affirmed his conviction under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 392, 394 and 397 (̌robbery) of the Indian Penal Code.
The case dates back to April 2002, when Head Constable Suresh Kumar, while returning home after duty, was attacked near Wazirpur in Delhi.
The accused, along with associates, assaulted him with fists and kicks before stabbing him in the abdomen and thigh with a knife. They also robbed him of personal belongings before fleeing.
The attack was allegedly motivated by a prior incident, when the same police officer had intercepted a vehicle linked to the accused. The Court noted that the accused appeared to have “nursed” this grievance, leading to the assault.
While upholding the conviction, the Court heavily relied on the injured policeman's testimony. It held, “The testimony of the injured witness is to be given additional weightage.”
Reliance was placed on State of U.P. vs Naresh & Ors. (2011) where the Supreme Court observed that the testimony of an injured witness has to be accorded a special status in law and should be relied on unless there are strong grounds for its rejection.
A contention was raised that there was a motive to implicate the Appellant inasmuch as the Appellant had allegedly slipped away from the hands of the police. The Court however found that instead, the Appellant had a reason to assault the official.
“In his testimony the victim has categorically stated that while assaulting him, certain utterances were made which indicated that the Appellant was very angry…” it noted.
The High Court also found that the nature and location of the injuries, particularly stab wounds to the abdomen and thigh, corroborated the prosecution's version of events and pointed to the use of a sharp-edged weapon.
It held that the injuries, coupled with the manner of assault and the weapon used, were sufficient to establish the intention required to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder).
The appellant also sought reduction of sentence on the ground that 23 years had passed since the incident, and that he had family responsibilities and had already undergone a substantial period of incarceration.
However, the Court refused to show leniency, observing that the nature of the offence—an armed attack on a police officer performing his duty—was grave. It also took note of the appellant's conduct and antecedents, including his behaviour in custody.
Holding that no mitigating factors warranted interference, the Court upheld both the conviction and the sentence.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to surrender forthwith.
Appearance: Mr. Vineet Jain & Ms. Richa Babbar, Advs. with Appellant-in-person; Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with SI Ajay Kumar, PS Ashok Vihar.
Case title: Ajay @ Shantu v. State
Case no.: CRL.A. 811/2003