Back
1980 Supreme(Del) 1
High Court Of Delhi
PARVIN KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 201 of 1979
Decided On : 01/02/1980
O.P.DUTTA, S.N.Mehta
The mere fact that the appellant was in possession of a knife does not prove that he had the intention to kill the complainant.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 27, ARMS ACT - GRIEVOUS INJURY - INTENTION TO KILL - POSSESSION OF KNIFE - SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for causing grievous injuries with a knife to the complainant. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were not grievous and that the prosecution had failed to prove the requisite intention of the appellant to kill the complainant. The court also found that the offence committed by the appellant fell under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 307, Indian Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the injuries inflicted by the appellant were grievous? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved the requisite intention of the appellant to kill the complainant? 3. Whether the offence committed by the appellant fell under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, or Section 324, Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were not grievous as the Medico-legal report did not mention the depth of the injuries and the doctor who had opined that the injuries were grievous was not produced. 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the requisite intention of the appellant to kill the complainant as the injuries were caused in a scuffle and there was no enmity between the complainant and the appellant. 3. The court held that the offence committed by the appellant fell under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, as the appellant did not have the intention to kill the complainant.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and reduced the sentence under both the counts to the period already undergone by the appellant.
( 1 ) THE appellant, Parveen Kumar, has challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Act LIV of 1959 ). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a. fine of Rs. 200. 00 under the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under the second count, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by his order dated September 21, 1979 for causing grievous injuries with a finife to Rakesh Kumar Jain (Public Witness I ).
( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Rakesh Kumar Jain, a resident of Dehra Dun, had come to Delhi on Februray 18, 1979. On February 21, 1979, the day of occurrence, he learnt that the accused, whom he knew earlier as they had been Jiving in the same street in Delhi had stabbed his uncle. On intervention by "mohallawalas" the incident, which happened two weeks before had not been reported to the police. On that very day at about 3,35 p. m. when he was passing through Pahari Dhiraj Bazar, he met the accused Parveen Kumar Ganja, who was coming from the opposite side. When asked by the complainant as to why he was behaving like a dada (reference being to the earlier stabbing incident), the accused told him that he had already taught a lesson to his uncle and would also see him (the complainant ). After this talk, the appellant took out a knife (Exhibit PI) on the left side chest and arm-pit of Rakesh Kumar. Immediately thereafter the injured was removed to the hospital by Moti Lal (Public Witness 2), who had reached the spot, on the alarm raised by the complainant. The incident had also been witnessed by Subhash Chand (Public Witness 6 ). The appellant could not be apprehended as he had run away.
( 3 ) THE statement (Exhibit F. A.) of the injured was recorded in the hospital and a formal First Information Report was registered. The accused on being arrested made a disclosure statement and led the police party to the recovery of the knife (Exhibit P 1) from under the heap of garbage outside Luxmi Devi Jain Girls Higher Secondary School, Mandirwali Gali, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. As the injuries were opined to be grievous in nature, caused with a sharp edged Weapon, the appellant was challenged for being in possession of the knife (Exhibit PI), under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
( 4 ) THE appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted that he met the complainant on February 21, J979 at about 3. 15 p. m. at the place of occurrence. According to him, Rakesh Kumar Jain had asked him as to why he had become a dada. He denied the allegations that he had inflicted the knife blows to Rakesh Kumar Jain. His version was that one Sunil, who was accompanying the complainant, had attacked him (the appellant) and while avoiding those blows, knife injuries were received by the complainant in that scuffle. He further denied that he had made any disclosure statement or that he had run away from the place of occurrence. According to him, he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of the quarrel which he had with the uncle of the complainant.
( 5 ) MR. O. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant, has not challenged the varacity of the witnesses who have deposed regarding scuffle in which the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain (Public Witness 1) had received injuries. He urged that even if the proscoution version regarding the appellant having inflicted injuries is believed, it has not been proved that the complainant had received any grievous injury. The submission is that Medico-legal report (Exhibit Public Witness PW/a) prepared by Dr. Vinod Kumar Kapur (Public Witness 12), who was the Casualty Medical Officer when the complainant was admitted in the hospital, does not prove the injuries to be grievous. In his cross-examination when asked about the depth of the injuries, Dr. Kapur stated: "for the depth of the injuries) it was t
