‘Not a bystander’:court convicts man for attempt to murder in 2017

A Delhi court has convicted a man for attempting to murder an 18-year-old boy in 2017, observing that the accused “actively participated” in the assault by restraining the victim from behind while his juvenile associate stabbed him in the abdomen

A Delhi court has convicted a man for attempting to murder an 18-year-old boy in 2017, observing that the accused “actively participated” in the assault by restraining the victim from behind while his juvenile associate stabbed him in the abdomen.

According to Delhi Police, the incident took place around 8:30 pm on October 2, 2017. (Vlad - stock.adobe.com)

The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of Saket courts on Monday, convicting the accused Manish. The court cancelled his bail and surety bonds and directed that he be taken into judicial custody. The quantum of sentence will be decided on September 30.

According to Delhi Police, the incident took place around 8:30 pm on October 2, 2017, when victim Sonu was standing outside his house in Block 3, Dakshinpuri, while talking on his mobile phone. Manish and his juvenile associate, both known to Sonu, approached him.

Manish subsequently began abusing Sonu and caught hold of him from behind when Sonu asked them to behave. The juvenile then pulled out a knife and stabbed Sonu in the left abdomen.

The victim suffered a stab wound that the doctor had opined to be “dangerous to life”, police said. Manish was subsequently arrested and the juvenile was apprehended and sent to an observation home.

The judgment primarily relied on the injured victim’s “clear, consistent, and natural” testimony, medical evidence showing a dangerous stab wound, and DNA evidence matching the victim’s blood with blood found on Manish’s T-shirt.

The court said the prosecution had proved its case “beyond all reasonable doubt” and rejected Manish’s alibi as a “fabricated afterthought”.

Consistent victim testimony

“The victim gave a clear, consistent, and natural account of how Manish grabbed him from behind while the juvenile stabbed his abdomen,” said the court, adding that the victim also described the second attempt to attack him and the subsequent threats.

The court observed that despite “searching cross-examination”, the defence could not bring out any material contradiction capable of dislodging the core of victim Sonu’s testimony.

The court also took into account the evidence of Rajkamal, the victim’s maternal uncle, who found Sonu bleeding and heard him murmur the names of the assailants, including Manish.

Court finds common intention proved

Rejecting the argument that Manish himself did not wield the knife, the court held that his conduct before, during and after the stabbing established his active participation and common intention.

“Manish did not remain a passive bystander,” the court observed.

It noted that the accused initiated the confrontation with aggressive verbal taunts, “physically immobilised the victim from behind to render him helpless against a deadly knife attack”, and subsequently joined the chase while threats to kill the victim were being shouted.

“These overt acts establish a shared common intention formed prior to and during the assault,” the judge held.

The court also referred to the legal principle that “common intention may develop on the spot and does not necessarily require a long-standing conspiracy or pre-arranged plan”.

DNA evidence corroborates prosecution

The judgment further placed particular reliance on forensic evidence. The court noted that, “DNA profiling conducted by the FSL established that the blood profile from the victim matched the profile of blood found on Manish’s red T-shirt”.

“The scientific evidence presented by the FSL provides conclusive, independent corroboration,” the court observed.

The judge further noted that Manish had offered no explanation as to how the victim’s blood came to be present on the clothes recovered from his house.

The court also relied on the recovery of the blood-stained T-shirt and jeans from Manish’s house and the recovery of the knife at the instance of the juvenile associate.

Court rejects accused’s alibi

The court went on to reject the defence plea that Manish was working as a school-bus helper at the time of the incident.

The court noted that a defence witness, his neighbour Ishaq, had claimed that Manish was on duty on October 2, 2017. During cross-examination, however, he admitted that the date was Gandhi Jayanti, a national holiday, and could not identify any school that was open that day, the court observed.

The judge noted that the witness had also never complained to senior police officers or a court that Manish had been falsely detained or implicated.

“The defence witnesses’ inability to name any open school, combined with his total silence prior to testifying in court after 8 years, renders his testimony a fabricated afterthought,” the court held.

Manish’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated and that the police planted his blood-stained clothes. His counsel also questioned the delay in recording Sonu’s statement, pointing out that the victim’s detailed statement was recorded on October 4, two days after the assault.

The court, however, found the prosecution evidence sufficient to overcome these objections and concluded that “the injured witness’s account was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence”.

“In light of the aforesaid detailed discussion, analysis, and findings based upon evaluation of ocular testimony, medical findings, and irrefutable forensic DNA evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Manish beyond all reasonable doubt,” the judgment said.