New Delhi, February 23 A Delhi court has convicted two men for attempting to murder a "golgappa" vendor who was stabbed multiple times after he demanded payment for the snacks he had sold in Chandni Chowk in 2018.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta held the accused, Javed and Anuj, guilty under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The other accused, Arman, had absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender in the case.
The accused, along with two other men, allegedly attacked the vendor, Jagram, on February 28, 2018, near the Kodiya Pul traffic signal in Chandni Chowk, after he asked them to pay for the snacks they had consumed.
According to the prosecution, three of the assailants held the vendor while one of them stabbed him two to three times in the abdomen with a knife. The injured person was initially taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and later treated at RML Hospital, where doctors opined that the injuries were "severe".
In its judgment, the court relied on the consistent testimonies of the injured complainant and an eyewitness, both of whom identified the accused during the trial. The judge deduced from their testimonies that the accused did not want to pay for the snacks they had consumed, and when Jagram asked for money, they became angry and agreed to beat him and stab him with a knife.
"This court is of the considered opinion that the accused had a sufficient motive to commit the offense, and the prosecution has successfully established the motive for the commission of the offense by the accused in this case," the court observed in its judgment dated February 7.
The judge also held the two prosecution witnesses to be of "high quality" as "their accounts were natural and they also withstood cross-examination". The court found their testimonies to be "clear, convincing, credible, and consistent", and "corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, medical evidence, and scientific evidence".
Further, the court noted that "the accused had not tampered with the investigation conducted by the investigating officer". The judge found that the manner of the assault clearly constituted an attempt to murder.
The prosecution examined 15 witnesses, including the injured vendor, an eyewitness, police officials, and doctors. The court also relied on the forensic science laboratory report, which found that the DNA profile generated from the knife and the victim's shirt matched the blood sample of the injured.
The court rejected the defence arguments about procedural lapses in the recovery of the weapon, as the prosecution was able to provide a detailed account with several witnesses confirming that there had been no tampering of evidence.
The court rejected the defence arguments that the accused did not intend to kill Jagram, as it noted that the prosecution had proved that the stab injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon, and the medicolegal case (MLC) corroborated this to be dangerous to his life.
"The case squarely falls under Section 307 of the IPC, and the intention and knowledge to commit murder of Jagram can be attributed to the accused, as they voluntarily caused these injuries to Jagram by using a knife," the court said.
The matter has been listed for hearing on the sentencing on February 24.