Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1140
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, S.P. GARG, JJ.
Praveen & Another
Versus
State
Crl.A. 28 of 2012 & 47 of 2012
Decided On : 30-04-2012
For the Appellant:D.M. Bhalla, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Sanjay Lao, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of common intention under Section 34 IPC and the distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder under Section 304 part-I and Section 302 IPC.
Headnote:
Common Intention - Criminal Law - Sections 302/34 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act - The judgment discusses the application of Section 34 IPC and the legal principles related to common intention in the commission of a crime. The court also considers the distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder under Section 304 part-I and Section 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the appellants for committing offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. The incident occurred at a bus terminal, where the deceased intervened to rescue a poor man being beaten by the accused. The accused, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted injuries on the deceased, resulting in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the testimonies of the witnesses and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. It found that the accused shared common intention to cause injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court rejected the plea for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and upheld the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the application of common intention under Section 34 IPC, the distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder under Section 304 part-I and Section 302 IPC, and the evaluation of testimonies and medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the existence of common intention among the accused can be inferred from the proved facts and circumstances. It also clarified that the number of injuries is not always the determining factor in ascertaining intention, but rather the nature of the injury, the part of the body where it is caused, and the weapon used are indicators of the intention to cause death.
Final Decision: The appeals lacked merit and were dismissed. The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. In these appeals by Praveen (A-1) and Deva (A-2), the judgment dated 26.11.2011 and order on sentence dated 29.11.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 116/2010 have been impugned. They were convicted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of `5,000/-each. A-2 was in addition convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years with a fine of `5,000/-. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. The criminal law was set into motion at around 10.29 P.M. on 07.07.2002 when Daily Diary (DD) Entry No.55-B (Ex.PW-12/A) was recorded by Constable Rakesh Kumar at police station Sultan Puri on getting information from Constable Rakesh of PCR that an individual was stabbed at Bus Stand, Sultan Puri. The investigation was assigned to SI Vinod Kumar who with Constable Jagdish reached the spot. At 10.40 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) Entry No.56-B (Ex.PW-12/B) was recorded on getting information from Dr.Sudeep of Brham Shakti Hospital that an individual was brought ‘dead’ by his brother Rakesh.
3. Pursuant to DD No.55-B (Ex.PW-12/A), SI Vinod Kumar on reaching the spot i.e. Bus Terminal, Sultan Puri did not find any eye witness. On receipt of DD No.56-B (Ex.PW-12/B), he reached Brham Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar and collected the MLC of Rajesh in which the doctor had pronounced him ‘dead’ on arrival. SI Vinod Kumar recorded Baljeet Singh’s statement who stated that on 07.07.2002 at about 8.00 P.M., he was sitting in the deceased’s house. At about 9.20 P.M., they both went to the Bus Terminal, Sultan Puri where the deceased wanted to settle accounts with his driver. At about 9.30 P.M. he (Rajesh) saw a boy, Sanjay (hereinafter described as A-5) beating a poor man and intervened to rescue him. On that, an altercation ensued between the deceased and A-5 and he (A-5) left the spot threatening to see him (Rajesh). After some time, A-5 brought his two associates (A-1 and A-2) and they started abusing him. They caught hold of Rajesh and A-5 hit him (Rajesh) on his head with a bottle as a result of which blood started oozing out and he (Rajesh) fell down. When he (Rajesh) attempted to flee, A-1 and A-5 caught hold of him and A-2 took out a knife from his trousers and stabbed him in the chest. Thereafter, they fled the spot. Baljeet Singh further stated that when he was taking Rajesh to Brham Shakti Hospital, and had travelled some distance, he (Rajesh) fell down. He informed the family members of the deceased and Rakesh, his brother, reached the spot and they both took him in a van to Brham Shakti Hospital. The victim died on the way to the hospital and the doctor declared him ‘dead’. Baljeet Singh further described the features of the assailants and claimed that he could identify them if they were shown to him.
4. SI Vinod Kumar made an endorsement on the statement and sent the rukka through Constable Jagdish for registering the case under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25, 27 Arms Act. The investigation was taken over by Insp.Sukhwinder Singh, SHO, PS Sultan Puri (IO). The police team with the complainant reached the spot; the crime team inspected the place of occurrence and the photographer took the photographs from different angles. The IO prepared the rough site plan at the instance of the complainant; seized blood, a blood stained sugarcane strip, an envelope and prepared necessary seizure memos. He recorded the statements of Jagdish Chand Sharma and Satpal and set out to apprehend the assailants. On 08.07.2002, the IO prepared the brief facts and sent the dead body for post-mortem. Dr.Komal Singh conducted the post-mortem of the dead body.
5. On 20.07.2002, on the basis of a secret information, A-1 was arrested from outside his house No.2810, Basti Julahan, Sadar Bazar; interrogated and the IO recorded his disclosure statement. On 24.07.2002, A-2 and Rattan (her
