Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2668
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA & R.K. GAUBA, JJ.
Veer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2000
Decided On : 9.10.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Praveer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP and Inspector Ramniwas, P.S. Roop Nagar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the identity and nature of the weapon used, the intention of the perpetrator, and the applicability of relevant legal provisions in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.
Headnote:
MURDER - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder and under Section 27 of the Arms Act for using a sword to cause injuries. The court analyzes the evidence, including the medical reports and eyewitness testimonies, to determine the appellant's guilt. The court also examines the applicability of Exception VI and the nature of the injury to decide the appropriate conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Praveen Kumar and for using a sword to cause injuries. The court analyzed the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, to determine the appellant's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was the perpetrator who had inflicted the fatal injury on Praveen Kumar. However, due to doubts regarding the recovery and identification of the weapon used, the court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court also modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304, Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues included the identification and recovery of the weapon used, the nature of the injury, and the appellant's intention to cause the injury suffered by the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the doubts regarding the recovery and identification of the weapon used, the nature of the injury, and the appellant's intention. The court also considered the applicability of Exception VI and the appropriate conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was modified from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304, Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also decided that the punishment already undergone by the appellant was adequate, but imposed a fine/compensation of Rs. 50,000, payable to the legal heirs of the victim.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Veer Singh by the impugned judgment dated 18th January, 2000 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of Praveen Kumar at about 11 P.M. on 4th March, 1996. The appellant-Veer Singh has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for having used a sword to cause injuries on the upper part of pinna adjoining the temporal region of Praveen Kumar.
2. The factum that the deceased-Praveen Kumar had died a homicidal death is discernibly established and proved from the Medical Legal Report (Exhibit PW-24/A) recorded at the Hindu Rao Hospital on 4th March, 1996 at 11.50 P.M. The said patient Praveen Kumar was brought by one Rishi Kumar, who has deposed in the court as PW-7. The patient was unconscious, pulse was not palpable, pupils were dilated and the heart beat was absent. Praveen Kumar was declared as brought dead. Dr. V.P. Singh (PW-24) proved the said MLC, in the handwriting of Dr. Tarun Sikri, who had also signed at point A. The post-mortem report of Praveen Kumar marked Exhibit PW-22/A was proved by Dr. C.B. Dabas (PW-22), who had conducted the post-mortem. As per the post-mortem report, the following external injuries were noticed:-
1. One incised wound 2.5 x 2 cm over left pinna in upper part and adjoining part of temporal region of scalp anteriorly located 6 cm posterior to outer angle of left eye.
2. Abrasion 2.5 x 2.5 over left side forehead.
3. Bruise 9 x 7 cm over upper inner aspect of right arm in axille.
4. Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm over lower back of right arm.
5. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over back of right elbow.
6. Superficial incised wound 0.5 x 0.4 cm in left lumber region of front of abdomen.
7. Abrasion 2 x 0.4 cm on right side front of abdomen in lumber region.
On Internal Examination, with reference to injury No. 1 it was observed:
Injury No. 1 had cut through temporal bone on left side and then cut the meninges over brain entered to lateral surface of left temporal lobe of cerebrum and after perforating through it cut through the piuatary fossa and ended on its left side on inner surface of right temporal frontal lobe upto a depth of 10.5 cm.
Injury No. 1 had caused the death of Praveen Kumar due to cranio-cerebral damage. The said injury had cut through the temporal bone on the left side and then the meninges over brain, etc. The injury was deep i.e. had a depth of 10.5 cm. We shall subsequently refer to the deposition of Dr. C.B. Dabas (PW-22), when we determine the question of the offence committed by the appellant Veer Singh.
3. There is ample evidence and material to show that there was a grapple and a free fight between two groups at about 11 P.M. in front of Roshanara Building on the night before Holi, i.e. 4th March, 1996. In this quarrel which had erupted while Holi fire was burning, that the fatal penetrating injury No. 1 was penetrated on the left pinna of Praveen Kumar. Three others Mahesh Singh, Yogesh @ Kallu and Yogender @ Gattu were also charge sheeted and had faced prosecution, but stand acquitted by the impugned judgment, as sharing of common intention for invoking Section 34 IPC was not proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment accentuates several infirmities to hold that the said acquitted accused had not overtly or covertly acted to provoke or facilitate the fatal attack on Praveen Kumar and in fact no exhortation stood attributed to them. Learned counsel for the appellant-Veer Singh has highlighted observations in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment wherein it has been held that the evidence of recovery of weapon appeared to be doubtful and the eye-witness version did not appear reliable against the acquitted accused Mahesh Singh and Yogender. The contention is that in spite of ascribing unpropitious and bleak opinion as to the version of the eye witnesses, it has been held that the appellant-Veer Singh had caused the fatal injury on the pinna of Praveen
