Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 887
High Court of Delhi
KAILASH GAMBHIR & SUNITA GUPTA, JJ.
Manjeet Singh
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
CRL.A. No. 51 of 1998
Decided on: 19-03-2014
For the Appellant:R.K. Anand, Chetan Anand, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Sunil Sharma, APP.
The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 374] - [CONVICTION U/S 302/307/324 IPC] - [LIFE IMPRISONMENT] - [FINE OF RS. 1000/-] - [SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS] - [FINE OF RS. 500/-] - [SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH] - [FINE OF RS. 1000/-] - [SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR] - [DISMISSED] - [NO MERIT] - [JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.01.1998 AND 15.01.1998, RESPECTIVELY, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, UPHOLD].
Fact of the Case:
Gurmeet Singh was murdered by Manjeet Singh over a petty dispute. Manjeet also injured Harjinder Kaur and Munna Khan, who tried to save Gurmeet. Manjeet was apprehended and a dagger used in the crime was recovered from him. The Trial Court convicted Manjeet for offences punishable under Sections 302/307/324 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the commission of offence punishable under section 307 IPC together with imposition of fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 324 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the three star witnesses of the prosecution. The Court also found that the accused had not controverted or challenged their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. The Court further found that their court depositions remained consistent and supportive of each other. The Court also found that the intention to kill a person might arise even at the spur of the moment and it is not necessary that in every case, the intention is formed prior to the act. The Court also found that the accused had inflicted as many as eight injuries on the body of the deceased and he in fact did not even spare the other two victims who came to the rescue of the main victim. The Court also found that the injuries inflicted by the accused were on the vital organs of the deceased, and therefore, the accused has been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, so far as the main victim is concerned and offence under Sections 307/324 IPC is also made out with regard to the injuries suffered by the other two victims.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt? 2. Whether the accused had controverted or challenged the presence of the witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence? 3. Whether the court depositions of the witnesses remained consistent and supportive of each other? 4. Whether the intention to kill a person might arise even at the spur of the moment? 5. Whether the accused had inflicted as many as eight injuries on the body of the deceased? 6. Whether the accused had spared the other two victims who came to the rescue of the main victim? 7. Whether the injuries inflicted by the accused were on the vital organs of the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The testimony of an eye witness is found reliable, the conviction can be based solely on the testimony of an eye witness. 2. The deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. 3. Minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the statement of an eye witness, cannot be a ground to refuse his entire evidence. 4. The intention to commit a particular crime can be formed even at the spur of the moment and in such like cases the conduct displayed by the offender at the time of commission of crime becomes very important. 5. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and resultantly, the judgment and order dated 14.01.1998 and 15.01.1998, respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 307 & 324 IPC is upheld.
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By this appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order on sentence dated 14.01.1998 and 15.01.1998, respectively, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Sections 302/307/324 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life together with imposition of fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the commission of offence punishable under section 307 IPC together with imposition of fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 324 IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is as under:-
“One Harjinder Kaur was residing at RGA Flats No.10, Raghubir Nagar. Her mother Charanjeet Kaur started residing with her at the said flat about two months prior to the incident. On 18.05.1993 at about 08:30 p.m. Gurmeet Singh, his sister Harjinder Kaur and his mother Charanjeet Kaur were present at the said flat at 08:30 p.m., when the accused Manjeet reached there. Gurmeet Singh asked accused to pay the money that he owed to Munna Khan. Accused Manjeet Singh took Gurmeet Singh(now deceased) along with him on his scooter on the pretext of paying money to Munna Khan. After sometime the accused, the deceased and Munna Khan returned to the said flat. There again Gurmeet Singh and Manjeet got into an argument over the same issue of paying certain dues to Munna Khan. On this, the accused started abusing the deceased. Gurmeet Singh asked accused to leave his house, if he was not willing to pay back the amount. The accused then dragged the deceased in a gali by holding his collar, took out a knife and stabbed him in his abdomen, back, chest and other parts of the body. On seeing this Harjinder Kaur came running to save her brother. Accused stabbed her as well on the left side of her waist. Munna Khan also came and the accused inflicted injuries on his person also.”
3. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied his involvement in commission of the said crime and pleaded innocence. The accused did not produce any witness in his defence.
4. The appellant in this case was represented through Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate. While the State was represented through Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned APP for the State.
5. Addressing arguments on the present appeal, Mr. R.K. Anand, learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove charges against the appellant and yet he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/307 and Section 324 IPC. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that accused Manjeet Singh and deceased Gurmeet Singh were not known to each other, and therefore, there could not have been any motive or intention to carry out the murder of Gurmeet Singh. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant in fact was a partner with one Mr. Mahender Aggarwal with whom he was doing a property business and his office was located near the flat of Smt. Harjinder Kaur, sister of the deceased. Counsel further argued that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused met the deceased at his flat and was asked by him to pay money, which he owed to his friend Munna Khan and then accused took Gurmeet Singh (deceased) on his scooter on the pretext of paying money to Munna Khan and after some time both of them came back along with Munna Khan to the said flat where, again Gurmeet S
