Back
High Court Of Delhi
SUNIL KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 201 of 1993
Decided On : 03/21/1997
CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Conviction - Evidence - Appreciation - Ocular evidence - Reliability - Corroboration - Recovery of weapon and cartridge - CFSL report - Medical evidence - Common intention - Section 34, IPC - Applicability - Offence under Section 302 or 304 Part I, IPC - Plea of alibi - Rejection - Legality.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Kailash under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The prosecution case was that the appellants, along with others, had shot Kailash dead in a quarrel over begging. The appellants denied the charges and claimed alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable and was corroborated by the recovery of the weapon and cartridge, the CFSL report, and the medical evidence. The court also held that the appellants had common intention to commit the murder and that the offence fell under Section 302, IPC, and not Section 304 Part I, IPC. The court rejected the plea of alibi raised by the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable and was corroborated by other evidence? 2. Whether the appellants had common intention to commit the murder? 3. Whether the offence fell under Section 302, IPC, or Section 304 Part I, IPC? 4. Whether the plea of alibi raised by the appellants was tenable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable and was corroborated by the recovery of the weapon and cartridge, the CFSL report, and the medical evidence. The court noted that the witnesses were related to the deceased, but their statements were consistent and were not shaken in cross-examination. 2. The court held that the appellants had common intention to commit the murder, as they had exhorted each other to shoot the deceased and had provided the gun and ammunition for the purpose. 3. The court held that the offence fell under Section 302, IPC, and not Section 304 Part I, IPC, as the injuries suffered by the deceased were fatal and were caused by a gunshot fired from a close range. 4. The court rejected the plea of alibi raised by the appellants, as they had not produced any evidence to show that they were not present at the scene of the crime at the time of the incident.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment.
( 1 ) THIS appeal by Sunil Kumar, Satish Kumar, Jal Singh andramphal is directed against the judgment dated 24/11/1993 ofanadditionalsessions Judge convicting them u/section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and orderof even date sentencing them to imprisonment as under:
(I) Sunil Kumar-Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. In defaultof payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for twoyears.
(II) Satish Kumar-Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. In defaultof payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for twoyears.
(III) Ramphal and Jal Singh-Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000. 00 each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months.
( 2 ) VIDE impugned judgment and order Satish Kumar was also convicted u/section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fiveyears and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he is to further undergorigorous imprisonment for one year.
( 3 ) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22/02/1989 on receipt of acopy of D. D. No. 18-H, SI Khushi Ram Public Witness Public Witness 22 alongwith ASIs Ram Pyara Singh. Rama Nand, Constables Raj Kumar Public Witness Public Witness 16 and Mahender Singh reached house No. G. 1792-93. Jahangir Pun and there Public Witness Public Witness 22 learnt that injured Kailash had been takento Hindu Rao Hospital. Leaving behind both the ASIs and Constable Mahendersingh for surveillance, Public Witness Public Witness 22 alongwith Public Witness Public Witness 16 left for Hindu Rao Hospital. Public Witness Public Witness 22collected MLC Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 10/a of Kailash from the Hospital. In the MLC Ex. Public Witness PW-10/a Kailash was reported by Dr. Vikas Public Witness Public Witness 10 to have been brought dead. Public Witness Public Witness 1 Ramkumar, brother of Kailash met SI Khushi Ram Public Witness Public Witness 22 in the Hospital. Public Witness PW22 recordedpw l s statement Ex. Public Witness Public Witness I/a that he was celebrating the birthday of his daughterat house No. G-1792-93 and in the function Public Witness Public Witness 7 Rajus/o Khema Ram, Public Witness Public Witness 2 Rajus/o Mehar Lal and Public Witness Public Witness 3 Mehar Lal S/o Neki Ram had come to participate amongstother persons. At about 9. 30 p. m. Raju Public Witness Public Witness 7 having taken his meals was taking foodfor his family and he was with him. When both of them reached in front of house No. G-1801-02, Satish Kumar was seen standing there with scooter No. DEM-97. Satishkumar told Public Witness Public Witness 7 "saley Bheekh Mangtey Firtey Ho, Sharam Aani Chahiya (youmove about begging and should be ashamed of it ). When Public Witness Public Witness 7 asked Satish Kumarnot to say like that, a quarrel ensured. There was exchange of hot words in which Ramphal, Jal Singh and Sunil Kumar also joined. On hearing noise, Kailash (sincedeceased) came there. In the meantime, Jal Singh, who resides in the neighbourhoodand is a relative of Satish Kumar, asked Satish Kumar to shoot them as they moveabout in the street talking non-sense. Ram Phal too told Satish Kumar to shoot them. Thereupon Satish Kumar and Sunil Kumar entered into the said house and reachedthe Chhajja (balcony abutting in the street) on the first floor. Sunil Kumar afterloading the gunhanded it over to Satish Kumar where from he fired at Kailash. Bulletentered the right cheek of Kailash and he fell down in the street. Blood startedcoming out and Kailash was taken to hospital by him and raju Public Witness Public Witness 2.
( 4 ) AFTER making endorsement Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 22/b, statement Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1 /a was sent bypw 22 through Public Witness Public Witness 16 for registration of case and on the basis thereof FIR (carboncopy Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 21/a) was recorded by HC
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
