Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 817

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Sunil @ Sonu – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3978-3979 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6250-6251 of 2024]
Decided On : 24-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Sr.Adv. Ms. Ambuja,Adv. Mr. S. Maini,Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Singh,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Singh II, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Unintentional homicide do not come within ambit of Section 302 of IPC.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1) read with Section 3(5)] – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – FIR was lodged after more than 24 hours – No interference would be warranted with finding of trial court and High Court that appellants have caused homicidal death of deceased – Possibility of offence being committed by appellants without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out – There is nothing on record to show that appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt – Present case would be covered under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC and as such, conviction under Section 302 of IPC would not be tenable – Appellants have undergone sentence of more than 8 years without remission – Conviction of appellants under Section 302 of IPC altered to Part-I of Section 304 of IPC – Appellants sentenced to period already undergone. (Paras 9, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned judgment and order, High Court upheld judgment and order dated 25th October 2017 rendered by Trial court in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2017 convicting appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Defence of appellants is a possible defence. There is a possibility of deceased and PW-1 coming to shop of Satish and a fight taking place between two groups. There is nothing on record to establish that there was any pre-meditation.
Result : Appeals partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 26th June 2023, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeals No. 408 and 137 of 2018, wherein the Division Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants Sunil @ Sonu (Accused No. 1) and Nitin @ Devender (Accused No. 4). By the said judgment and order, the High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 25th October 2017 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2017 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The High Court also upheld the order of sentence dated 6th November 2017 vide which the trial court had sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default whereof simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeals are as under:

3.1 The case of the prosecution is that Rahul (PW-1) and Sachin (deceased) had pre-existing disputes with one of the present appellants Sunil @ Sonu (Accused No. 1) and his brother Satish @ Chhotu (Accused No. 2). On 28th November 2016, Rahul (PW-1) along with Sachin (deceased) was walking on the road and appellant Sunil @ Sonu (Accused No. 1), Satish @ Chhotu (Accused No. 2), Gaurav (Accused No. 3) and the other appellant Nitin @ Devender (Accused No. 4) were standing there. At about 09:15 PM, they startedabusing Rahul (PW-1) and Sachin (deceased) and after a verbal altercation, all the four accused caught hold of them and started attacking them with knives and dandas. Sachin (deceased) tried to run, and the present appellants chased him while being armed with a knife. They caught him and inflicted knife blows. Thereafter, Shivani (PW-2) (Aunt of Rahul/PW-1) while trying to save Rahul (PW-1), saw a police official namely ASI Subhash Chandra (PW-15) passing by and after stopping him took him to the place of the incident. On seeing them, the accused persons ran away.

3.2 The police were called, and two separate PCR vans took Rahul (PW-1) and Sachin (deceased) to the hospital. Thereafter, SI Suresh (PW-19) arrived at the spot. Rahul (PW- 1) could not be found, and Sachin (deceased) was found unfit to give a statement. A search was conducted for Rahul (PW-1) but he could not be found. Thereafter, Rahul (PW-1) himself arrived at the Police Station on 29th November 2016 at about 11:45 PM and his statement was recorded. Subsequently, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) No. 667 of 2016 was registered at P.S. Jahangir Puri, District North West, Delhi on 30th November 2016 against three outof the four accused persons for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC based on the written statement of Rahul (PW-1) narrating the whole incident from his point of view.

3.3 The search for the accused persons began and all the four accused were found behind PRAYAS Home, EE Block, Jahangir Puri. All four were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded.

3.4 On 2nd December 2016, information was received that Sachin (deceased) had died during treatment and the charge for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was added.

3.5 The post-mortem of Sachin (deceased) was conducted by Dr. Arun Kumar (PW-8), and as per the post-mortem report the cause of death was opined to be septicemic shock consequent upon compartment syndrome and infection of left lower limb as a result of ante mortem injury to left thigh produced by pointed sharp edged object.

3.6 The medical examination of Rahul (PW-1) was conducted on 30th November 2016 by Dr. Avinash Tripathi (PW-9) and the existence of abrasions were found and it was opined