The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, particularly in the context of a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation.

ORDER

1. The accused-appellant Ubesh Khan, son of Chhutan Khan, has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 30.05.2008 dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2005 preferred against the judgement passed by Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi convicting the appellant for : offences punishable under sections 302, 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [In short 'IPC'] and awarding the following sentences:

i) life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- in default six months rigorous imprisonment under section 302 of IPC;

ii) rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.2000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under section 307 IPC;

iii) rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs1000/- in default 1 month rigorous imprisonment under section 324 IPC.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :

i) At about 9:45 AM on 16th June 2003, the appellant-Ubesh Khan, his sister Rukhsana and his brother-inlaw Sajid Master went to Mohd. Murshid's house to ask for return of the money which the latter owed to the appellant. Murshid told him that he shall return the money within 2-3 days when he recovers the same. On this, an altercation took place between the two and the appellant started abusing Murshid. The appellant got enraged, took out a knife from beneath his clothes and gave blows on the chest and stomach of Murshid. Upon intervening, PW-2 Mehboob and PW-3 Jahangir were also assaulted by the appellant. PW-4 Mohd. Shakir took the three injured persons to the AIIMS hospital, New Delhi.

ii) PW-7 the Investigating Officer, Babu Lal obtained statements of PW-2 and PW-3, after obtaining permission of the Chief Medical Officer, as they were eyewitnesses to the incident. After that, returned to the scene of crime took photographs and collected evidence from the spot.

iii) On the same day, PW-7 received information about the death of Murshid and autopsy was conducted on 17th June 2003 by PW-1, Dr Sunil Arora.

iv) The appellant was arrested from New Delhi Railway Station on 20.06.2003 and an arrest memo and personal search memo was prepared.

3. Chargesheet under section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [In short 'the CrPC'] was filed against the accused-appellant under sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC.

4. Charges were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced.

5. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses which included the informant Mehboob (PW-2) and Jahangir (PW-3), the injured eyewitnesses to the incident, Dr Sunil Kumar (PW-1), who had conducted the autopsy, Mohd. Shakir (PW-4) who brought the injured to the hospital, Sub-Inspector Kiran Sood (PW-5) who recorded the FIR, Sub-Inspector Madanpal (PW-6) draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan, SI Babu Lal (PW-7) the Investigating Officer (IO) and Dr. Anandita (PW-8) who examined the injured.

6. During trial, in his statement under section 313 of CrPC, the appellant contended that he was innocent and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case.

7. After perusing the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for both prosecution and defence, the Trial Court vide order dated 21.02.2005 in Sessions Case No. 78/03 convicted the appellant for offences under sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and vide order dated 23.02.3005 sentenced the appellant as already reproduced in the opening paragraph.

8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2008 before the High Court. The High Court vide judgment dated 30.05.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal in this Court.

9. The Trial Court and the High Court relied upon the following evidences to record finding of conviction and awarding sentence as disclosed above:

i) Testimony of PW-2 Mehboob, real brother of the decease