Back
High Court of Delhi
S.P. GARG, J.
Inderjeet
Versus
State of Delhi
CRL.A. No. 158 of 2011
Decided On: 15-05-2014
Section 308 IPC - Attempt to commit culpable homicide - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 308 IPC and altered the conviction to Section 325 IPC based on the nature of injuries and the absence of intention or knowledge to cause death.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 308 IPC for inflicting injuries on the victim, leading to a life-threatening condition. The victim later succumbed to the injuries, and the appellant appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court altered the conviction from Section 308 IPC to Section 325 IPC based on the sudden quarrel, absence of prior planning, and the aggravating effect of the victim's pre-existing health conditions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the injuries, the intention of the appellant, and the appropriate section of the IPC for the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the sudden nature of the quarrel, absence of prior hostility, and the impact of the victim's health conditions in altering the conviction.
Final Decision: The appellant's substantive sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, and he was ordered to pay compensation to the victim's family.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. The appellant-Inderjeet challenges the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 20.01.2011 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.4/08 arising out of FIR No.288/04 registered at Police Station S.P.Badli by which he was held guilty under Section 308 IPC. By an order dated 25.01.2011, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three and a half years.
2. Allegations against the appellant, as reflected in the chargesheet, were that on 25.05.2004 at about 08.45 pm, at Main Road, Near Mandir, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi, he inflicted injuries to Rajender Singh by sariya in an attempt to commit culpable homicide. Daily Diary No. 27-A (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded at 09.45 pm at Police Station S.P.Badli on getting information about admission of injured Rajender Singh at Babu Jagjivan Ram hospital by his wife Balvinder Kaur. The investigation was marked to SI Dhananjay Gupta who with Ct.Narender went to the hospital. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant-Rajender Singh’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A). The complainant gave detailed account of the incident and implicated Inderjeet for causing multiple injuries to him by saria. Since the First Information was lodged in promptitude, there was no possibility of the complainant to fabricate or manipulate the incident and to falsely name Inderjeet to be the author of the injuries caused to him. MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) records the arrival time of the patient at Babu Jagjivan Ram hospital at 9.30 p.m. Name of his wife Balvinder Kaur appears in the MLC. He was brought to the hospital by Gopal Singh. Various injuries were found on his body. PW-5 (Dr.Sanjay Kumar) proved the MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) by which the patient was examined by Dr.K.L.Sarvangy, Dr.Mahesh Kumar and Dr.Nitin Puri and following injuries were found on the body:-
(i) Soft tissue injury over left forearm.
(ii) Abrasion over mid forearm dorsal aspect.
(iii) Abrasion over the both eyes.
(iv) Linear horizontal bruise with abrasion present over left hypochondrium.
(v) Abdomen tense, tender in left hypochondrium, gauding present in left hypochondrium.
3. The patient was referred to Trauma Centre for ultrasound and further management. The prosecution examined PW10 (Dr.Deepak Kumar Singh), Chief Medical Officer, Shaushruta Taruma Centre who deposed that the patient was admitted on 26.05.2004 after being referred from BJRM hospital. He remained under treatment in the Trauma Centre and was discharged on 02.06.2004. He proved the medical documents (Ex.PW-10/A) regarding the treatment given to the victim. As per the medical documents, the injured was treated for perforation of intestines and the patient was operated for exploratory lapratomy at 04.00 a.m. on 26.05.2004 itself. He further deposed that the injuries were life threatening and had medical aid not been provided to him, these could have been fatal. Nature of injuries was opined ‘dangerous’ by Dr.Choden, Sr.Resident, General Surgery. In fact, injuries suffered by the victim are not under challenge. Specific suggestion was put to PW-2 (Rajender) in the cross-examination that during grappling between him and the appellant, he (the victim) fell down and sustained injuries. The witness volunteered to add that he was hit by a ‘saria’ by the accused. The complainant denied the suggestion that he had abused the appellant before the appellant attacked him. Defence pleaded by the appellant that the victim sustained injuries due to fall inspires no confidence. No such suggestion was put to the doctors in the cross-examination if the injuries suffered by the victim were possible due to fall.
4. While appearing as PW-2, Rajender proved the version given to the police at the first instance without any variation. He attributed specific motive to the accused to pick-up quarrel with him due to inability of his brother-in-law to return Rs.500/-. When he advised the appellant to demand money from the person to whom he had give
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
