Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1505
High Court of Delhi
S.P. GARG, J.
Pradeep Kumar
Versus
The State (Nct Of Delhi)
CRL. A. No. 1165 of 2011 & CRL. M.B. No. 18 of 2014
Decided on : 27-05-2014
For the Appellant:Mukesh Kalia with Hansraj Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimonies and medical evidence to uphold the conviction under Section 304 part-II IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Conviction under Sections 452/341/304 part-II IPC - [452, 341, 304 part-II] - The court discussed the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to establish the guilt of the appellant under the mentioned sections. The court highlighted the nature of injuries, the sequence of events, and the lack of plausible explanation from the appellant, leading to the decision to uphold the conviction under Section 304 part-II IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 452/341/304 part-II IPC for causing the death of a victim by inflicting severe beatings. The prosecution's case was based on witness testimonies and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the consistent testimony of the witness, lack of material discrepancies, and the medical evidence supporting the nature of injuries inflicted by the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the nature of injuries, and the sequence of events leading to the victim's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness testimonies, the lack of material contradictions, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant under Section 304 part-II IPC.
Final Decision: The appellant's appeal was disposed of, and the substantive sentence of RI for seven years was reduced to RI for six years. The appellant was also directed to pay compensation to the victim's family.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. Pradeep Kumar (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 17.08.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 32/2011 arising out of FIR No. 327/2010 PS Timarpur by which he was held guilty under Sections 452/341/304 part-II IPC. By an order dated 24.08.2011, he was awarded RI for four years with fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 452 IPC; SI for fifteen days under Section 341 IPC; and, RI for seven years with fine Rs.50,000/- under Section 304 part-II IPC. All the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Shorn of details, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 14.12.2010 at about 08.00 P.M., in gali No.16, Shiv Mandir, Wazirabad, the appellant wrongfully restrained Ram Balak Yadav and Deepak Yadav in the gali. Soon thereafter, he gave severe beatings to Deepak Yadav in his house which resulted in his death. The police machinery was set in motion when information about the incident as recorded in PCR form (Ex.PW-2/A) was conveyed to the Police Control Room at 20:45:14 hours. The victim was taken to Sushruta Trauma Centre and was medically examined by MLC (Ex.PW-4/A). He succumbed to the injuries on 30.12.2010 in the Trauma Centre. Postmortem examination on the body was conducted. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant – Ram Balak Yadav’s statement (Ex.PW-6/A) on 15.12.2010. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On 04.01.2011, the appellant surrendered in the Court and was arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused; he was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses to prove his guilt. In 313 statement, he abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has preferred the appeal.
3. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimony of interested witness PW-6 (Ram Balak Yadav) without independent corroboration. Vital improvements in the testimony of PW-6 (Ram Balak Yadav) in Court statement were ignored. PW-1 (Veer Sain) did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. The complainant was a falsely introduced witness who never lived at the given address. The inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report remained un-explained. Adopting the alternative plea, counsel urged that even if the prosecution case was accepted in toto, the offence could not go beyond Section 325 IPC as the incident took place all of a sudden without premeditation and the appellant was not armed with any dangerous weapon; no visible injuries were caused to the victim. Appellant’s counsel voluntarily offered to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that no sound reasons exist to discard the testimony of the complainant who had witnessed the incident and had no ulterior considerations to falsely implicate the appellant.
4. PW-1 (Veer Sain), landlord, though did not support the prosecution in entirety and resiled from the previous statement (mark ‘A’) nevertheless, deposed that Ram Balak Yadav and his nephew Deepak (since dead) lived on the ground floor of House No. 240, Gali No.16, Shiv Mandir, Wazirabad as tenants. He also deposed that incident occurred in the presence of Ram Balak Yadav. Someone called the PCR and took the victim to the hospital. His son Raj Kamal also accompanied them. The testimony goes to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between PW1 (Veer Sain) and Ram Balak Yadav, and also confirms Ram Balak Yadav’s presence at the spot. Mere non-execution of rent-note or tenancy agreement is not a vital factor to doubt / suspect this relationship.
5. The time of occurrence was at
