Back
2002 Supreme(Del) 1487
High Court Of Delhi
RAMDISH VERMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 210 of 1997
Decided On : 09/24/2002
P.R.Thakur, Ravinder Chadha
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the circumstances and similar cases to determine the appropriate conviction for the appellants, taking into account the spur of the moment nature of the incident and the lack of serious enmity.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 302, Section 34 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the subsequent appeal against the same. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The defense argued for a lesser conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, citing similar cases and single injury as mitigating factors. The court considered the circumstances and decided to convert the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, taking into account the spur of the moment nature of the incident and the lack of serious enmity.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was stabbed to death at the house of the appellants following a quarrel over an alleged offense of sodomy committed by one of the appellants. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC based on the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. However, considering the circumstances and similar cases, the court decided to convert the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC.
Issues: The main issue was the appropriate conviction for the appellants, considering the nature of the incident and the mitigating factors presented by the defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the spur of the moment nature of the incident, lack of serious enmity, and similar cases where single injuries led to convictions under Section 304 Part II IPC. These factors influenced the decision to convert the conviction for the appellants.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants was converted from Sections 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part II/34 IPC. The appellants were ordered to be released based on the sentences already undergone by them.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 5/91 dated 21. 3. 1997 and 22. 3. 1997 respectively.
( 2 ) THE appellants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/= was also imposed on each one of them and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo rigourous imprisonment for 15 days each.
( 3 ) THE brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under. On 16. 9. 1990 at 9:20 p. m. , Attar Singh, Pradhan of Village Nawada informed the Police Station, vikas Puri on telephone that one person namely, Mehtab Singh was quarrelling behind his house. On the basis of this information, DD No. 40 B was recorded and the inquiry was entrusted to Sub Inspector Mahesh Kumar. Consequently S. I. Mahesh Kumar visited the spot and found no one except the blood lying in the room and some articles were found scattered all over. PW-1 Nirmala Devi, resident of nearby house (B-25) met S. I. Mahesh Kumar outside her house. She informed him about the occurrence. S. I. Mahesh Kumar recorded her statement (Exhibit PW-1/a) and thereafter he went to Din Dayal Upadhay Hospital and obtained the M. L. C. of the deceased Virender Kumar in which it was mentioned that the deceased was brought Dead .
( 4 ) THE first information report is based on the statement of PW-1-Smt. Nirmala Devi and a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered against the appellants. According to her testimony, her son Lovelesh aged about five years used to play in the neighbourhood. According to her statement, appellant Ramdish is her neighbour. About one week prior to the incident, Montu @ Suresh s/o Ramdish was seen by deceased Virender - brother of the husband of Smt. Nirmala Devi doing an act of Sodomy with Lovelesh. He ran away immediately after the deceased had seen him. Mehtab Singh complained to the appellant Ramdish, father of Montu @ Suresh, but he paid no attention and appellant Monty @ Suresh continued wrongful activities. On this issue, there had been verbal altercations between Nirmala s husband and the parents of Montu @ Suresh.
( 5 ) ON 16. 9. 1990, at about 9:00 p. m. , Mehtab Singh again complained against the appellant montu @ Suresh. All the four appellants persons started abusing him. In the meantime, deceased Virender came to the house of his brother Mehtab Singh. PW-1 Nirmala Devi asked the deceased Virender to call back his brother Mehtab Singh. When the deceased virender had gone to the house of the appellant Ramdish, Nirmala Devi heard someone shouting "maar DIYA - MAAR DIYA". She saw the appellants forcibly dragging the deceased virender inside their house and Mehtab Singh was trying to stop them. By the time Nirmala devi reached there, the appellants had already dragged Virender Kumar inside the house and stabbed him in the abdomen with a sharp edged weapon and thereafter the appellants ran away from the scene of occurrence. Nirmala Devi s younger brother-in-law (Dewar) vijender and others took the injured to Deen Dayal Hospital where he was declared brought dead . The appellant Ramdish was arrested on 17. 9. 1990 and on his disclosure statement, the knife, weapon of offence was recovered which he had concealed on the roof of the house.
( 6 ) THE post mortem was conducted by Dr. L. T. Ramani. He found the following injuries :
(I) Incised wound present transversly on the hypochondrium region of abdomen along the costal margin with expulsion of loops of bowels and omentum from the - injury. The size of the injury was 17 cm x 7. 5 cm. It was abdominal cavity deep. The outer part of th e injury showed bifurcation of the ends 3 cms apart;
(II) Linear abrasion 6 cms long on left side of forehead;
(III) Superficial incised wound 3 cms x 0. 5 cm on the right forearm anterio aspect;
(IV) Defence cut 2 cms long. Skin deep on right index f
