Back
High Court Of Delhi
MAHINDER KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 03/14/1996
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION FOR MURDER - CHALLENGE TO CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY, MOTIVE, AND SELF-DEFENSE - RELIANCE ON STATEMENTS OF INTERESTED WITNESSES - SCRUTINY OF EVIDENCE - ABSENCE OF MOTIVE AS A RELEVANT FACTOR IN PRESENCE OF OCULAR EVIDENCE - CONTRADICTIONS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING SEAT OF INJURIES - LAPSE OF MEMORY AND HUMAN ERROR - RELIABILITY OF MAIN PLANK OF PROSECUTION CASE - RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENSE - ABSENCE OF PLEA AND EVIDENCE - INADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Mohd. Shamim, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his brother, Surinder Kumar. The incident occurred due to a dispute over the tenancy of a house, with the appellant claiming a share in any premium collected from a new tenant. The appellant stabbed the deceased twice in the chest, leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the mother and sister of the deceased, were reliable and could be relied upon, despite their interest in the outcome of the case. The court also found that there was sufficient motive for the appellant to commit the murder, as he was opposed to the deceased's plan to vacate the house and collect a premium from a new tenant. The court rejected the appellant's claim of self-defense, finding that there was no evidence to support this plea.
Issues: 1. Whether the statements of interested witnesses can be relied upon in a criminal case. 2. Whether the absence of motive is a relevant factor in the presence of ocular evidence. 3. Whether contradictions in witness statements regarding the seat of injuries affect the reliability of the prosecution case. 4. Whether the right of private defense is available to an accused who does not plead it or provide evidence to support it. 5. Whether a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code is admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the statements of interested witnesses can be relied upon in a criminal case, but they should be scrutinized with greater care than the statements of independent witnesses. The court noted that the appellant was also related to the prosecution witnesses, which reduced the likelihood of false testimony. 2. The court held that the absence of motive is a relevant factor in assessing the evidence, but it is not conclusive. In the presence of strong ocular evidence, the absence of motive becomes less significant. 3. The court held that minor contradictions in witness statements regarding the seat of injuries do not necessarily affect the reliability of the prosecution case, especially when the witnesses are testifying about events that occurred under stressful circumstances. 4. The court held that the right of private defense is not available to an accused who does not plead it or provide evidence to support it. The court noted that the appellant had not taken the plea of self-defense in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The court held that a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not admissible in evidence unless it is exhibited during the cross-examination of the witness.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
( 1 ) THE convict-appellant (hereinafter rererred to as the appelicant for the sake or convenience) challenges through the present appeal, judgement and order dated May 6, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he was found gullty under section 302 of the indian Panel Code and sentenced to undergo ngorous imprisonment for life with a fine or Rs. 500. In case of his failure to clear the fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts which led to the presentation of the present appeal are As under : that one Smt. Devki (Public Witness 10) was putting up at House No. 2461, Katra Banwari Lal, alongwith her sons and daughters, exeluding the appellant, who also hapapens to be her son, as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2. 50 since the time of her foretathers. The appellant, who is married, has been living separately from the members of his family in a house at Jheel, Snahdara, Delhi alongwith his wife and children.
( 3 ) THE bone of contention in between the appellant and his mother and other brother was the above said tenanted accommodation. Smt. Devki wanted to vacate the said house and to deliver the possession over the same to any one who was ready to pay the premium and the amount so secured was to be paid to the son who would look after her. The ppellant. was opposed to the above view. Ha insisted that in case the aforesaid house was vacated and someone was inducted s a tenant in that eventuality he should be given his due share in the premium so collected.
( 4 ) THE appellant on February 19, 1988, at about 8. 15 a. m. came to the abovesaid house. Smt. Devki (Public Witness 10), her Son Surinder deceased, her daughter Smt. Shakuntla (Public Witness 12), Kirpal i. e. her son (Public Witness 5), Smt. Rashmi wife of the deceased were also present at that point of time. Immediately after his arrival he started abusing his mother Public Witness 10 and other brothers A whereupon Surinder deceased (hereinafter referred to as deceas- ed) intervened. He told the appellant that there was no occar sion for him to pick up a quarrel with the mother on the said score as she was the tenant in the house and she could as such, deal with the house in any manner she liked. It led to a flaming row in between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant told the deceased in no uncertain tairms that he was siding with the mother and he would teach him a lesson for doing so as soon as he came out of the house. Both of them thereafter went outside the house towards the Community Centre. They were followed by Smt. Davki (Public Witness IO), Kirpal (Public Witness 5) and Smt. Shakuntia (Public Witness 12 ).
( 5 ) THE appellant threatened the deceased with dire conse- quences. He whipped out a dagger from the right side packet of his pant and hit the deceased twice on the leftside of his chest. Public Witness 5 Kirpal Singh and Public Witness 13 Mangal tried to come to the rescue of the deceased and to have him from his clutches. However, he threatened them also that whosoever would come in between him and the deceased would also meet the same fate. After having stabbed the deceased he flew away from the made good his escape.
( 6 ) BROTHER of the deceased took him to the LNJP hospital. He was examirnsd over there by Dr. Ajay Behal. He opined him unfit for making the statement vide Ex. Public Witness 4 (A. Public Witness II Laxman p Prasad who was on duty at the hospital informed the Police Station Chandni Mahal in regard to the admission of the decea- sed in the hospital. The said information was recorded vide D. D. No. 9\vide Ex. Public Witness 15 (A ). A copy of the said D. D. was hand- ed over to ASI Om Prakash (Public Witness 15 ). On receipt of the same he immediately left for the L. N. J. P. hospital. He secured there- " from injury report in respect of the deceased. However, he met over there Kirpal Singh (Public Witness 5 ). He recorded his statem
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
