Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 840
High Court of Delhi
REVA KHETRAPAL & V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
Ashok Kumar
Versus
State
CRL. APP. No. 351 of 1998
Decided on: 14-03-2014
For the Appellant:Ajay Verma, Prateek Sisodia, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rajdipa Behura, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles to determine the nature of the offence and the appropriate conviction, considering the evidence and intention of the accused.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offences under Sections 302/307/427 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 302, 307, 427 - The judgment discusses the evidence and arguments presented in the trial court, including the factual matrix, investigation, witness statements, and legal contentions. The court analyzed the lacunae in the investigation, witness credibility, and the intention of the accused in committing the crime. The judgment also refers to legal principles from various cases to determine the nature of the offence and the appropriate conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 302/307/427 IPC for driving a bus into jhuggis, causing death and grievous injuries to the occupants. The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including witness statements and site inspection, to determine the intention and actions of the accused. The court found that the accused was involved in the commission of the crime, resulting in the death of a 15-year-old and grievous injuries to others. The court also considered the plea of the accused and the lacunae in the investigation.
Issues: The key issue was whether the crime was committed with previous deliberation or pre-meditation, warranting conviction under Section 302 IPC, or if the accused's actions were not substantiated by credible evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from various cases, including the requirement to prove intention to inflict bodily injury and the sufficiency of the injuries to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court also considered the principle of exclusion in determining the appropriate penal provision.
Final Decision: The court converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and the conviction under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 325 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a direction to serve out the balance sentence without remission upon being traced out.
Reva Khetrapal, J.
1. This appeal calls into question the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned trial court whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/307/427 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which, to undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Section 307, RI for one year for the offence under Section 427 IPC and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
2. The factual matrix which led the trial court to convict the Appellant (who has since been declared a proclaimed offender) and to sentence him as aforesaid is that on the night intervening 1st and 2nd January, 1995 at about 4.00 a.m., the Appellant who was driving bus No.DEP 7007, drove over the jhuggi of PW2 Makhan Lal causing grievous injuries to Makhan Lal, his wife PW3 Kishan Devi and his son Jaipal, who were sleeping in the said jhuggi and also the adjoining jhuggi where PW1 Sheela, daughter of Makhan Lal was sleeping with her husband PW4 Ram Kewal. After ramming into the jhuggis, the said bus collided with the wall adjoining the jhuggis. The Appellant was overpowered at the spot. The police vehicle removed the injured to AIIMS where the doctor declared Jaipal as brought dead.
3. The criminal law machinery was set into motion at 4.10 a.m. when Head Constable Azad Mohammad No.1083/PCR at police post Govind Puri, New Delhi was informed through wireless that one bus had rammed into a jhuggi near Giri Nagar, bus stand of 425, and police may be sent at the spot where bus No.DEP 7007 was standing. On receipt of this information, DD No.24 was entered in the roznamcha and copy of the DD No.24 (Ex.PW8/A) was handed over to Assistant Sub-Inspector Vir Singh (PW8) for taking appropriate action. PW8 along with Constable Shyamvir thereupon went to the place of occurrence at Giri Nagar where he noticed a bus had run over the jhuggis near the boundary wall of the school. The driver was in the vehicle. On coming to know that the injured persons had already been shifted to AIIMS hospital, PW8, Assistant Sub-Inspector Vir Singh reached the hospital where he met the injured persons and was told that Jaipal was brought dead. He recorded the statement of Ram Kewal (Ex.PW4/A), which he sent to the police station along with his endorsement (Ex.PW8/B) through Constable Mahabir. He then returned to AIIMS with the FIR (Ex.PW5/A) at around 6.00 a.m. and recorded the statements of the injured persons, namely, Makhan Lal (PW2), Kishan Devi (PW3) and Sheela (PW1). Thereafter, he along with Ram Kewal (PW4) reached the spot at 6.30 a.m. The SHO was present at the spot and he (PW8) was informed that the investigation had been entrusted to Sub-Inspector Bijender Singh (PW11).
4. Sub-Inspector Bijender Singh (PW11) then posted as In-charge of Police Post Govind Puri after being entrusted with the investigation of the case, as per the orders of the SHO reached the spot, prepared the site plan (Ex.P-X1) on the pointing out of Ram Kewal (PW4) and got the spot photographed vide Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/6. At the spot, he took bus No.DEP 7007 into police possession and prepared seizure memo (Ex.PW11/A). Thereafter, he arrested the Appellant present at the spot after interrogation and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW11/B. He then recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the following day, i.e., 3.1.1995, he got conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Jaipal. It may be usefully noted at this juncture that Assistant Sub-Inspector Vir Singh (PW8) on the basis of the statement of Ram Kewal (Ex.PW4/A) had recommended the registration of the case under Sections 279/337/304A IPC. Subsequently, he recorded the supplementary statement of Ram Kewal (PW4) at the hospital itself after recording the statement of Kishan Devi (PW3) and Makhan Lal (PW2), which, as per the case of the prosecution, was recorded after about 20-25 minutes of the first statement
