Back
High Court Of Delhi
R. S. SODHI & P. K. BHASIN
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) - Appellant
Versus
NARAIN SINGH - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 9 Of 1990
Decided On : 04/16/2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302, 323, 324, 452] - [IPC] - [ACQUITTAL] - [EYE WITNESSES] - [PARROT LIKE STATEMENTS] - [MEDICAL EVIDENCE] - [COMMON INTENTION] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - The High Court reversed the acquittal of the accused persons and convicted them for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 324 and 452 IPC. The Court held that the evidence of the eye witnesses was reliable and trustworthy and could not be rejected merely because they had made parrot-like statements. The Court also held that the medical evidence supported the prosecution case and that the accused persons had the common intention to cause the death of the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The four accused persons were tried for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, section 452 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses for establishing its case against the accused persons. The accused persons had also examined eleven witnesses in defence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the evidence of the eye witnesses was reliable and trustworthy and could not be rejected merely because they had made parrot-like statements. The Court also held that the medical evidence supported the prosecution case and that the accused persons had the common intention to cause the death of the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eye witnesses was reliable and trustworthy? 2. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution case? 3. Whether the accused persons had the common intention to cause the death of the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence of the eye witnesses was reliable and trustworthy and could not be rejected merely because they had made parrot-like statements. The Court observed that the eye witnesses were consistent on all the material aspects of the incident and that their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence. 2. The Court held that the medical evidence supported the prosecution case. The Court observed that the autopsy surgeon had opined that the injuries on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 3. The Court held that the accused persons had the common intention to cause the death of the deceased. The Court observed that all the accused persons had come to the house of the deceased duly armed and that they had all assaulted the deceased.
Final Decision: The High Court reversed the acquittal of the accused persons and convicted them for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 324 and 452 IPC.
P. K. BHASIN, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 03-06-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 440/1988 arising out of FIR No. 200/1984 pertaining to police station Narela whereby all the four accused persons, who are now the respondents in this appeal and were tried for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, section 452 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and section 323 read with Section 34 IPC have been acquitted of all these charges.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the four acquitted accused Narain Singh, ram Chander, Attar Singh and Smt. Phulo @ Phulwati was that they had killed karan Singh who was the brother of accused Attar Singh, Narain Singh and PW-10 amar Singh. These four brothers had some ancestral properties in village jathkore in Delhi and a family partition had taken place. However, accused attar Singh and Narain Singh were not satisfied with that family partition and because of that their relations with their brother Karan Singh were strained. PW-10 Amar Singh was married but had no issue. He along with his wife was living with the deceased Karan Singh. Wives of Karan Singh and Amar Singh are sisters. Accused Attar Singh and Narain Singh apprehended that Amar Singh would give his properties to his brother Karan Singh or his children and so they had a grudge against Karan Singh. It is the further prosecution case that on 28. 08. 1984 at about 5. 30 p. m. when Karan Singh (the deceased) was going to take bath in the courtyard (bagar) of his house accused Narain Singh armed with a two pronged jelly, accused Attar Singh armed with a lathi, accused Ram Chander, who is the brother-in-law of accused Narain Singh, also armed with a lathi and narain Singh"s wife Smt. Phulo carrying a gandasi came out of their house to the courtyard of Karan Singh and at that time accused Narain Singh told Karan singh "aaj Amar Singh ki jaidaad day detain hain" (they would give him property of Amar Singh that day) and saying so accused Narain Singh gave a jelly blow on the chest of Karan Singh upon which Karan Singh went inside his room. Accused attar Singh and Ram Chander followed him inside where Attar Singh gave a lathi blow on the right shoulder of Karan Singh, accused Ram Chander gave a lathi blow on his right hip. Then Karan Singh came out of the room towards the "sehan" when accused Phulo gave two gandasi blows on the head of Karan Singh. When PW-10 Amar Singh, his wife Smt. Chameli (PW-13), Karan Singh"s wife Dhanpati (PW-14)
and Karan Singh"s daughter Omwati (PW-15) tried to intervene and save Karan singh, accused Attar Singh and Ram Chander gave lathi blows to Chameli and Ram chander gave a lathi blow on the knee of Smt. Dhanpati also. Attar Singh hit on the leg of PW-10 Amar Singh with his lathi and Ram Chander gave a lathi blow on his shoulder. Narain Singh gave a jelly blow on the right hand of Amar Singh. Karan Singh died at the spot itself and all the accused persons fled away from there. Accused Phulo threw her gandasi in the bagaar before going away from there. On being informed of the incident the police came to the place of occurrence. PW-10 Amar Singh gave his statement Ex. PW-10/a in which he narrated the afore-said facts. The investigating officer (PW-20) seized the blood stained gandasi (Ex. P-1) from the spot and also held inquest proceedings. FIR No. 200/84 was registered at 9 p. m. same day. The police arrested all the four accused persons and after completing the usual investigation it filed a charge-sheet against all of them in the court. After the committal of the case to Sessions Court all the four accused were charged under Sections 452/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 302/34 IPC. All the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
( 3 ) THE prosecution examined 20 witnesses for establishing its case against the accused persons. In their statements recorded under
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
