Convicting three men of stabbing and robbing a truck driver in Zirakpur, a Mohali court has sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The court held Arjun Kumar, Lachhman Kumar and Ashish Rana guilty of robbery, attempt to commit culpable homicide, causing grievous hurt, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation for the October 2020 crime near Ramada Hotel, Zirakpur.
The court noted that investigative lapses and minor discrepancies could not outweigh the injured victim’s consistent account and strong medical corroboration. “The evidence showed that the three left the victim with 19 injuries, including stab wounds to the chest and abdomen that were serious enough to require insertion of an intercostal tube,” the court stated.
The prosecution said victim Rajesh Kumar, a canter driver transporting rice bags, had reached the Zirakpur godown area in the early hours of October 27, 2020, when he stopped at a slip road near the hotel to ask where the unloading point was. According to his statement, three men approached him, hurled abuses and launched the assault.
Two allegedly used knives while the third struck him with a stick. He told the court that the attackers stabbed and thrashed him repeatedly, threatened to kill him, dragged him onto the GT Road, and robbed him of cash, identity documents and vehicle papers before snatching his chain and fleeing toward the Baltana side.
The court treated the injured witness’ testimony as central to the case and found no material reason to discard it. It noted that the complainant had identified the accused and that his version was supported by medical records detailing multiple bleeding stab and incised wounds across the back, abdomen, chest and forearm.
The court said the nature of the injuries, the choice of weapons and the threats issued during the assault were sufficient to establish not only grievous hurt but also the intention and knowledge necessary for an offence under Section 308 of the IPC.
The court rejected the defence contention on the investigation. The defence had pointed to the absence of CCTV footage, missing call detail records, non-production of some hospital records, and the fact that the recovered weapons were never sent to the forensic science laboratory.
But the court observed that “minor inconsistencies, contradictions and deficiencies” did not affect the core of the prosecution case, especially where the testimony of the injured witness remained trustworthy. The court also made a broader point on criminal trials, holding that the accused could not claim the benefit of faulty investigation when the substantive evidence against them remained intact.
The judgment further relied on recoveries allegedly made after the accused were arrested on November 5, 2020. Police said stolen articles linked to the complainant were recovered from the accused at their instance, along with weapons allegedly used in the crime.
In addressing common intention, the court said it was not necessary for the complainant to specify which accused caused which individual injury. What mattered, it held, was that the attack was carried out jointly and pre-arranged plan, making each accused liable for the acts of the others under Section 34 (joint liability) IPC. That reasoning became central to the convictions under charges.
The three were convicted under Sections 392 (robbery), 308 (culpable homicide bid), 326 (causing grievous hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 506 (criminal intimidation) besides 34 of the IPC. The court, however, did not convict them separately under Sections 379-B (snatching) and 411 (receiving stolen property) after holding that the offence was made out as robbery, and it acquitted them of the charge under Section 201, saying there was no convincing evidence that they had caused disappearance of evidence.
The court declined to show leniency despite submissions that the convicts were poor men and sole breadwinners. Apart from the seven years of jail under Sections 392 and 308, the convicts were awarded three years under Section 326 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC. They were also awarded separate lesser sentences under the remaining offences, all to run concurrently.
