Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 303
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ
Dalbir Singh
Versus
State
Crl. A. 218 of 99
Decided On: 03-02-2012
For the Appellants:Ms. Saahila Lamba, Amicus Curiae, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate for Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Criminal).
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to sudden fights, intention to cause death, and undue advantage in determining the appropriate conviction under the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
302 IPC - Conviction for Offence - Section 302/34 IPC - Section 304 Part II IPC - Section 428 Cr.P.C. - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the applicability of Section 302/34 IPC and Section 304 Part II IPC in the context of a sudden quarrel resulting in the death of the deceased. The court referred to legal provisions and interpretations related to the intention to cause death, sudden fight, premeditation, and undue advantage, ultimately convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of the deceased during a sudden quarrel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the occurrence was a sudden and unpremeditated quarrel, leading to the appellant's conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the quarrel, intention to cause death, and the applicability of legal provisions related to sudden fights and undue advantage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that in cases of sudden quarrels, the offender must not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner to determine the appropriate conviction under the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone in imprisonment.
PRATIBHA RANI, J
1. The appellant Dalbir Singh has impugned the judgment dated 23.03.1999 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and order on sentence dated 27.03.1999 vide which he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated appellant Dalbir Singh alongwith his mother Sohan Devi (acquitted by learned Trial Court) was sent to face trial on the basis of complaint Ex.PW5/A lodged by Mr.Tek Chand, son of Mr.Udey Ram and brother of deceased Rajinder Singh. The contents of complaint Ex.PW5/A reveal that on 22.03.1991 at about 8.15 pm, he along with his mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Mrs. Santosh was watching “Chitrahar”, his elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Ms.Veero (wife of the deceased) was busy in cooking. Deceased Rajinder Singh was sipping tea outside the house when the appellant Dalbir Singh abused him complaining that children of the deceased were indulging in abuses. While threatening to see Rajinder, the appellant forcibly took him to the place where buffaloes were tethered and started attacking him with a “phawadi”kept there for removing the cow dung. Deceased Rajinder suffered injuries on his head and other parts of the body and he alongwith his mother and Bhabhi Mrs.Veero removed him to the hospital. As the deceased was opined to be ‘unfit for statement’ his statement Ex.PW 5/A was recorded.
3. Initially FIR under Section 308 IPC was registered against the appellant. On 26.03.1991 Rajinder succumbed to the injuries and FIR was converted under Section 304 IPC. During investigation Mrs.Sohan Devi, mother of appellant Dalbir Singh was also found to be involved in the occurrence, she was also arrested in this case. After completion of investigation, they were sent to face trial.
4. At this stage, we would like to observe that initially not only FIR was converted under Section 304 IPC but even the chargesheet reveal that the appellant and his mother were sent to face trial for committing the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. However, in Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by overwriting in Column No.7 at the top, the offence mentioned as 304 IPC was changed to under Section 302/34 IPC.
5. After the committal of the case to the Sessions Court, appellant Dalbir Singh and his mother Sohan Devi (coaccused) were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty & claimed trial.
6. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all to substantiate the charge and the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant Dalbir Singh and his co-accused Sohan Devi. After considering the testimony of material prosecution witnesses, while Sohan Devi was given benefit of doubt and acquitted, appellant Dalbir Singh was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as stated herein above.
7. While PW-1 Ct. PAwan Kumar took the pullandas to CFSL, PW-2 HC Jagdish was working as Duty Officer on the relevant date and proved the copy of DD No.56-B as Ex.PW2/A received from Duty Constable at SDN Hospital, Shahdara regarding admission of injured Rajinder. Thereafter he also recorded the FIR Ex.PW2/C. PW-3 Lady Ct. Kanta is a witness to the arrest of co-accused Sohan Devi. PW-4 Ct. Rajinder Singh remained associated with first Investigating Officer ASI Asha Ram. While PW-5 Mr.Tek Chand, PW-6 Ms.Veero and PW-7 Mrs.Pushpa Devi are eye witnesses,Pw-8 Dr.George Paul conducted the postmortem and proved the report as Ex.PW8/A. PW-9 Dr. D.Chatterji prepared the MLC on admission of Rajinder in SDN Hospital. PW-10 Inspector R.S.Mehra took over the investigation after the death of Rajinder. He conducted inquest proceedings and got the postmortem conducted. PW-11 Ct.Rajinder was posted as Duty Constable at SDN Hospital and conveyed the information vide DD No.56-B Ex.PW2/A. PW-12 Mr.Om Prakash was posted as Record Clerk at JP
