Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA and ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JJ.
PRAVEEN KUMAR ALIAS PAPPU ALIAS PURAN SAXENA and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL.A.NO. 579, 614, 650, 938, 983/2013
Decided On : 14.07.2015
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.34
Headnote
Conviction - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Jaggi. The primary challenge in the appeals was to the findings of the trial court accepting the eye witness account given by Hari Ram Saroj and Lalmani Saroj. The prosecution primarily relied upon the eye-witness account given by Hari Ram Saroj and Lalmani Saroj, brother and father of the deceased Jaggi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eye-witness accounts were credible and accepted the prosecution's version of the events. The court also found that the presence of the appellants at the scene of the crime was established and upheld the conviction of Praveen Kumar, Sita Ram, Azad @ Patiya, and Bhutna. However, the court found the case against Mohd. Usman to be debatable and tenuous, and thus, gave him the benefit of doubt, setting aside his conviction and sentence.
Issues: The primary issue was the credibility of the eye-witness accounts and the presence of the appellants at the scene of the crime. Another issue was the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which refers to common intention and incorporates the principle of vicarious liability when an accused shares the common intention with the actual perpetrator of the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, the post mortem report, and the photographs of the crime scene to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also upheld the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the acts of the appellants were actuated by the same common intention.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by Praveen Kumar, Sita Ram, Azad @ Patiya, and Bhutna were dismissed, and their conviction and sentences were sustained. The appeal filed by Mohd. Usman was allowed, and his conviction and sentence were set aside.
For the Appellant :Ms. Anita Abraham, Advocate, Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate. Mr.Tanveer Khan, Advocate, Mr. Ravindra S Garia & Mr. S.S. Rawat, Advocates, Mr. Chetan Anand, Advocate, Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with SI Umesh Rana, P.S.Ashok Vihar, North West District.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Five appellants Praveen Kumar @ Pappu @ Puran Saxena, Sita Ram, Azad @ Patiya, Bhutna and Mohd. Usman @ Churi impugn their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of one Jaggi at about 10 P.M. on 12th July, 2009, near Jhuggi No. A-93, Jailer Wala Bagh, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi. The judgment under challenge dated 22nd December, 2012 arises from the charge-sheet filed in FIR No.330/2009, police station Ashok Vihar.
2. By order on sentence dated 12th February, 2013, the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Fine of Rs.5,000/- each has been imposed. In default, the appellants have to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been granted.
3. The primary challenge in these appeals is to the findings of the trial court accepting the eye witness account given by Hari Ram Saroj (PW1) and Lalmani Saroj (PW7), inter alia, on the ground that they had not seen the occurrence but are planted and tutored eye witnesses. It is pleaded that since there is grave doubt and debate as to the place of actual occurrence and the investigation being faulty and full of gaps, benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants. The appellants Praveen and Mohd. Usman have pleaded that the trial court has erred in relying upon the testimony of Hari Ram Saroj (PW1), recorded on 29th April, 2010, for in his subsequent examination on 19th November, 2010, this witness did not identify and implicate them. Lalmani Saroj (PW7) also has not deposed about the involvement of Praveen and Mohd. Usman. On behalf of the appellant Mohd. Usman, it is pleaded that his name is not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.PW4/B), which was recorded on the basis of the statement made by Hari Ram Saroj (PW1) to the police. The appellants have also pleaded that the purported third eye-witness Angrahit Chaudhary (PW3) did not support the prosecution version. In the alternative, it is pleaded that Section 34, IPC would not be applicable as the appellants did not share a common intention and each of them could be individually held liable for the specific injuries attributed to them.
4. The prosecution, in the present case, primarily relies upon the eye-witness account given by Hari Ram Saroj (PW1) and Lalmani Saroj (PW7), brother and father of the deceased Jaggi. PW-1, in his deposition recorded on 29th April, 2010, has averred that he was running a ration shop at Jailer Wala Bagh and his younger brother, the deceased Jaggi, used to work in his shop. On 12th July, 2009, when PW1 along with Lalmani Saroj (PW7), Angrahit Chaudhary (PW3) and the deceased Jaggi, were present in the shop, the five appellants, whom he correctly identified in the Court, came and started abusing them. Jaggi had protested and enquired from Praveen the reason for such behaviour. Praveen had then retorted and curtly stated that Jaggi claimed himself to be a social reformer. Jaggi pleaded that he had not made any such claim. Praveen was having a sword, Sita Ram was having a meat cutting knife, Bhutna was having an iron rod (saria), Usman was having a double-edged knife and Patia was having a knife. Bhutna gave a saria blow to Jaggi, who, in order to save himself, ran away from the spot, but was chased and overpowered near Jhuggi No.A-93, Jailer Wala Bagh. Hari Ram Saroj (PW1), Lalmani Saroj (PW7) and Angrahit Chaudhary (PW3) followed them. The appellant Praveen hit the deceased Jaggi with a sword and others, namely, Sita Ram, Usman, Patia and Bhutna gave blows with knives and saria. Jaggi fell down and became unconscious. The appellants fled away from the spot. PW-1 claimed that he did not intervene to save his brother Jaggi since he was frightened. However, he had protested loudly and people had gathered at the spot. Someone had informed the police, after which a
