JUDGEMENT

ABC J. & XYZ J.

1. At the outset, it is necessary to state the facts in detail to appreciate the questions
which arise for determination before this hon’ble court. At around 23:00 on 14 th of
July, 2017 at Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Mr Ramesh (hereinafter, referred to
as the Victim) law asleep at on his open veranda when he was struck on the head.
Upon his awakening due to this unexpected spectacle, the Victim saw Mr Dinesh
(hereinafter, referred to as the Accused) running with a knife in his hand. After the
victim beckoned for help, his neighbour, Mr Suresh ( hereinafter, Prosecution Witness
2) came to his aid and together they apprehended the Accused. The Accused was
brought to the law enforcement agency the next day. The relevant statements were
made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the investigation
authorities recovered knife and clothes from the Accused. With the relevant forensic
tests being conducted with the recovered objects.
2. On examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Accused had
prayed that he was innocent. The Prosecution put forward medical evidence wherein a
doctor was brought in to bring to light before this Hon’ble Court that the injury of the
victim could not have been caused by a fall. The investigation authority had recovered
knife and blood-soaked clothes from the Accused. The Defence did not give any
explanation as to the presence of human blood on the recovered objects. During the
examinations; the Defence had maintained his innocence and that he was being
framed due to the prevalence of an enmity between him and the victim. But did not
give explanation as to the status of the recovered objects. Prosecution Witness 1,
Ramesh had admitted that he had not seen the Accused inflicting the said injury. It
was also brought ut in his testimony that the Accused was a familial relation of his,
his younger brother. Pw.2 had stated that he had seen the Accused running with a
knife and caught him.
3. The evidence laid down by the prosecution elide on the witness testimonies of thee
victim (pw1), Mr Suresh (pw2), the doctor (pw3) and seized items by the
investigation officer. The defence did not produce any evidence for its case.
4. The Prosecutor submitted that the guilt of the Accused was proved beyond reasonable
doubt and evidence brought to light with regards to the intention of the accused, the
commission of the crime and the behaviour of the accused after the incident is proof
 beyond all reasonable doubt. It was submitted by the Defence that there is a lacuna of
evidence as nobody had seen the Accused inflicting the injury. It is not prudent to
hold the chemical examination valid, the test was used to stated that the blood found
on the recovered items was human blood, and lastly that the accused was innocent in
character and was the sole bread winner of his family. Due to the existence of a false
enmity, the Accused was falsely implicated.
5. Intention is derived from the circumstances that led to the commission of the crime,
conduct of the accused while the offence was being committed and after.