Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2473
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Nooruddin & Another
Versus
State
CRL.A. Nos. 811 & 820 of 2012
Decided On: 24-11-2014
For the Appellants:K.B. Andley, Sr.Advocate instructed by M. Shamikh, Shafiullah, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Aashaa Tiwari, APP with S.I. Rizwan Khan, P.S. Seelampur, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the sudden quarrel exception to Section 300 IPC in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence.
Headnote:
Murder - IPC - Sections 302/34 - Summary: The court discussed the prosecution's case based on the testimony of two eye-witnesses and the defense's contention that the incident happened in a sudden commotion, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The judgment relied on legal provisions and interpretations to alter the conviction and reduce the sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for murder under Sections 302/34 IPC based on the testimony of two eye-witnesses. The defense contended that the incident happened in a sudden commotion, leading to a request for a reduced sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident fell within the exception to Section 302 IPC and altered the conviction to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The appellants' sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the eye-witness testimony and whether the incident fell within the exception to Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and interpretations to alter the conviction and reduce the sentence based on the sudden quarrel exception to Section 300 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants was altered to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC, and their sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
Gupta Mukta Gupta, J.
1. Nooruddin and Shahid assail the judgment dated June 06, 2012 whereby they were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC for the murder of Ikramuddin and the order on sentence dated June 07, 2012 directing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each.
2. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of two eye-witnesses Mohd.Faiyad PW-1 and Mohd.Akeel PW-2 which is assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that Mohd.Faiyad and Mohd.Akeel were not present at the spot. Further even accepting the version of Mohd.Faiyad and Mohd.Akeel, the site plan would evince that they could not have witnessed the incident from the house of Mohd.Shahid. Even as per the case of prosecution Ikramuddin and Faiyad had gone to the house of Shahid and thus were the aggressors making probable the version of defence that Ikramuddin and Mohd.Faiyad came to the house of Mohd.Shahid along with 10/12 persons and in the melee who caused gunshot injury was not known. The weapon of offence has not been recovered till date. The story of the prosecution that Nawab gave pistol to Nooruddin who fired the shot and returned the same to Nawab is highly improbable. Further the prosecution version is falsified by the testimony of Mohd.Furkan PW-3. In the alternative it is contended that since the incident happened in a sudden commotion the appellants at best are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304/34 IPC and thus they be released on the period already undergone.
3. The defence of the appellant Mohd.Shahid in answer to question ‘as to whether he has to say anything else in his defence’ is as under:
“I was having affair with Ms.Shaina who was the niece of the Ikramuddin. Ikramuddin and his family members were opposed to this relation and they had objected to Ms.Shaina but failed. Thereafter, they started giving threats to me. They threatened to kill me. On the date of occurrence, the deceased Ikramuddin along with ten young person, came to my house and one of them, called me. I came out from my house. They started beating me and dragged me to adjacent wide street. They were beating and abusing me. It was a dark night and there was no light there. A voice of gun shot was heard and immediately, they started to run away from there. However, PW Mohd.Faiyad, after the said occurrence, was caught by me and my family members and even, some neighborers helped us in apprehending him. Thereafter, telephonic call was made by my family to PCR from the mobile phone of my father. Meanwhile, Nooruddin also came there by chance after 5/10 minutes. He also helped me in apprehending Mohd.Faiyad. PCR officials came at the spot and Mohd.Faiyad was handed over to PCR police. I have been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered at my instance. I stated true facts before the SHO/IO but they concocted their own version as they failed to find the real culprit, even after, detailed inquiry from us and PW-1 Mohd.Faiyad who was also suspect. Ultimately, I along with my relatives have been falsely implicated in this case.”
4. The explanation of Nooruddin in response to the question ‘as to whether he wanted to say anything else in his defence’ is as under:
“On the date of occurrence, I came to the house of Shahid to meet him. I saw that PW Mohd.Faiyad was apprehended by Shahid and his family members and he was trying to run. I also helped them to hold him. Thereafter, PCR officials came at the spot and Mohd.Faiyad was handed over to PCR police. On humanitarian ground, I along with three-four persons of the locality went to the hospital to see the injured Ikramuddin. When I reached there I was beaten by the relatives and friends of the deceased. However, due to intervention of police, I was saved and I was taken to the Police Station. Blood was oozing out from my nose and head, at that time, due to which, my shirt was having blood stains. I requested
