SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 239

High Court of Delhi
G.S. SISTANI AND SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.

Parween @ Chander Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 1005 of 2013
Decided On : 03-02-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Harit Chhabra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sunil Sharma, APP

The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of testimony of interested witnesses, the reliance on police evidence, and the application of Section 304 Part-I IPC in cases where the act is committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.

Headnote:

Section 304 Part-I IPC - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 302/397/34 IPC - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the identification of the accused. The court also considers the legal principles related to the admissibility of testimony of interested witnesses and the reliance on police evidence. The court ultimately convicts the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment and order on sentence passed by the trial court convicting him under Sections 302/397/34 IPC. The prosecution's case involved the appellant's involvement in a crime where a woman was fatally injured, and the appellant was named by the co-accused. The appellant contested the conviction, citing material contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable, and the identification of the appellant was deemed credible. The court also discussed the admissibility of testimony of interested witnesses and the reliance on police evidence. The court ultimately convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.

Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the identification of the appellant, and the admissibility of police evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles related to the admissibility of testimony of interested witnesses, the reliance on police evidence, and the application of Section 304 Part-I IPC in cases where the act is committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.

Final Decision: The court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC and modified the sentence to the period already undergone, which was about 8 years and two months.

Judgment :-

G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral):

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment dated 12.7.2013 and order on sentence dated 16.7.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No.1674/06 registered under Sections 302/397/34 IPC at Police Station Sultan Puri, by which the appellant has been convicted to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant was further directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for three months. It was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently and benefit of section 428 was given to the appellant.

2. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court in its judgment dated 12.7.2013, is as under:

“1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 18/19.10.2006, PW-26 Ins. Ravinder Singhw was patrolling in the area of PS Sultan Puri and while patrolling, he was informed by the duty officer that DD No.7-B dated 19.10.2006 had been registered regarding apprehension of one thief at P-II Sultan Puri. Accordingly, PW-26 Ins. Ravinder Singh reached there and found PW-10 ASI Ranbir, PW-12 Ct. Biri Singh and accused Krishan present there and came to know that accused Krishan along with his other co-associate had inflicted injuries on the person of one lady namely Pinky and that accused Krishan had been apprehended at the spot and that the injured lady had already been removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi by her husband/PW-3 Deepak Kumar. PW-26 Ins. Ravinder Singh went to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, along with his staff and accused Krishan, leaving PW-21 Ct. Joginder at the spot. The PW-8 HC Raj Kumar and PW-13 Ct. Ravinder were also called to the hospital and accused Krishan was handed over to them with directions to get his medical examination conducted. The PW-26 Ins. Ravinder Singh also met PW-3 Deepak, husband of injured Pinky in the hospital, however, he did not give any statement then as he was busy in treatment of his wife. At about 3:15/3:20 A.M. the concerned doctor declared Smt. Pinky dead. Thereafter, Ex.PW-3/A i.e. statement of PW-3 Deepak Kumar was recorded, wherein he stated that he was residing with his family in rented accommodation at P-II/1484, Sultan Puri, Delhi and was working in a factory. He had married Pinki (since deceased), two years prior to the incident. On the night of the incident, complainant was watching film on television along with his parents, sister Sadhana and cousin (maternal brother) Vijay in the room, while his wife was sleeping on a bed on the roof of the room. At about 12.30/12.45 mid night, the complainant heard his wife screaming and he came out of the room and saw that two boys had climbed roof of the house. One of the said boys had closed the mouth of his wife, while the other gave a forceful blow with a brick on the head of his wife. In the meantime, Vijay, cousin brother of the complainant also came out. As the complainant was liming the ladder, kept for going to the roof, to save his wife, both the boys started coming down from the said ladder. The first boy pushed complainant backwards and managed to escape by climbing down the ladder, however, complainant managed to apprehend the other boy, who had given blow with a brick on his wife’s head, while he was attempting to escape. In the meantime, public persons also collected at the spot and gave beatings to accused Krishan, as his name was revealed later on. Complainant took his wife to Sa




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top