Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2586
High Court of Delhi
PARDEEP NANDRAJOG & MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Rakesh @ Toni
Versus
State NCT of Delhi
Crl. Appeal No. 1431 of 2014
Decided On : 10-12-2014
For the Appellant:K. Singhal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Varun Goswami, APP Insp. Balbir Singh, PTC Jharoda Kalan & SI Mahender Partap, PS Sultan Puri, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all relevant evidence and circumstances to determine the nature of the incident and the culpability of the accused.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act - Relevance of Facts - Part-I, On Proof - Part-II, Production and Effect of Evidence - Part-III - Section 25/27 of the Arms Act - Summary: The court discussed the relevance of facts, how relevant facts or facts in issue have to be proved, and the provisions concerning presumptions pertaining to documents under the Indian Evidence Act. The court also considered the provisions which help in determining whether a burden cast on a party to prove a fact in issue has been discharged. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of relevant facts and the burden of proof under Part-III of the Indian Evidence Act, as well as the provisions of Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Suraj and for an offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The court noted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses and highlighted vital information recorded in the Police Control Room form and the Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) of the appellant, which contradicted the witnesses' version of the incident.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the witnesses, the nature of the incident, and the interpretation of the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the witnesses' version of the incident was contradicted by the information recorded in the Police Control Room form and the appellant's MLC. The court also considered the circumstances leading to the incident and the appellant's reaction.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the appeal, convicting the appellant for causing homicidal death not amounting to murder under Section 304-I IPC, and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.
PARDEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has three parts. Under the heading Relevance of Facts Part-I contains sections which guide the court in determining as to which facts would be relevant at a trial to determine the facts in issue. Under the heading On Proof Part-II contains sections which guide the court in determining how relevant facts or facts in issue have to be proved and which would include documents. It contains provisions concerning presumptions pertaining to documents. Under the heading Production and Effect of Evidence Part-III contains provisions which help the court in determining whether a burden cast on a party to prove a fact in issue has been discharged.
2. It is Part-III of the Law of Evidence which calls for a clear noting of each and every relevant fact proved at the trial, for the reason such facts which are relevant and probabilize a fact in issue asserted by the one who affirms need to be weighed against each and every such relevant fact which deprobablizes a fact in issue. The court has to keep in mind each and every relevant fact proved while determining whether the incline has been crossed to reach the plateau of fact in issue being proved.
3. With the aforesaid preface we commence our journey in appeal, noting that vide impugned decision dated April 15, 2013, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence of having murdered Suraj, using the knife Ex.P-6 and for having committed an offence punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act because the blade of the knife had length of 21 cm and breadth, at the centre, of 4 cm; the knife was tapering to form a tip at the other end of the knife. Such kinds of knives were prohibited under a government notification dated February 17, 1979 No. F13/2003/78-Home (c), as per which no person could possess an open knife or a knife having mechanical device in a public place where the blade length was more than 7.62 cm.
4. The learned Trial Judge has believed the ocular version deposed to by Rajesh Kumar PW-2 and Om Prakash PW-4.
5. We therefore would be noting the testimony of the two eye witnesses of the prosecution, but before that would note that the FIR Ex.PW-14/E, has been registered on the basis of the statement Ex.PW-4/A made by Om Prakash PW-4 to Insp. Balbir Singh PW-18 at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri where, Suraj was admitted at 7:40 PM on November 27, 2010 by Ct.Manoj, as recorded in Suraj’s MLC Ex.PW-7/A, proved at the trial by Dr. M. Das PW-7, the author of the MLC.
6. In the statement Ex.PW-4/A, which is in Hindi, loosely translated, Om Prakash disclosed as follows:-
“Statement made by Sh. Om Prakash @ Titu aged 39 years, S/o Late Sh. Murari Lal, R/o H.No. A-66, Gali No.2, Ratan Vihar, Delhi.
I reside at the aforesaid address as a tenant alongwith my elder brother Ramesh. I am a Rickshaw Puller and usually park my rickshaw at G-block, Shani Bazar, Near Police booth. Today i.e. on 27/11/10 at about 6:25 in the evening I went to Shani Bazar Road, Sulatanpuri alongwith my nephew Suraj, S/o Late Sh. Raju, R/o B-453 Aman Vihar, Delhi and Aunt’s (Mausi) son namely Rajesh Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Atma Ram, R/o C-7/91, Sultanpuri, Delhi. I had purchased an All Out refill from one shop at Shani Bazar Road. My nephew Suraj had purchased an old black coloured sweater from Shani Bazar and wore the same. After that we all were returning to our home. On the way we sat near a toilet which was situated in front of G-block Govt. School and started smoking ‘beedi’. At the same time at about 6:45 P.M. in the evening one boy namely Rakesh @ Tony, S/o Billu resident of G-Block, Sultanpuri whom we were already acquainted came to us and asked Suraj to provide him a cigarette. My nephew Suraj replied that he had Beedi not Cigarette. On this Rakesh @ Tony while hurling abuses angerly said that don’t you know who I am? I will count till 3 and if you will not provide me the Cigarrete then I will do away with you. Then T
