In order to prove an offence under Section 308 IPC, it must be shown that the accused had the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court held that the offence under Section 308 IPC was not made out in this case.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Vide judgment dated 29.03.2011, learned Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in case FIR No.365/2008 under Section 308/34 registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar, Delhi convicted the appellant – Pawan Chadha for offence under Section 308 and Section 323/34 IPC while co-accused Vikas Chadha and Mukesh Chadha were held guilty and convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.

2. Vide order dated 31.03.2011, convict – Pawan Chadha was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years for offence under Section 308 IPC and was also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 323/34 and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The sentences were to run concurrently. The appellants/convict – Vikas and Mukesh were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of six months on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and good behaviour.

3. Feeling aggrieved, initially the appellant – Pawan Chadha preferred an appeal being Crl. Appeal No.640/2011. The complainant filed Crl. Appeal Nos. 966/2011 and 947/2013 seeking enhancement of sentence of the convicts Pawan Chadha and Mukesh Chadha respectively. Thereafter, convicts Vikas Chadha and Mukesh Chadha filed Crl. Appeal No.1572/2013 challenging the impugned judgment vide which they were convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.

4. Since all appeals are arising out of the common judgment, as such, the same are taken up together.

Prosecution case:

5. The police machinery swung in action on receipt of DD No.71B regarding a quarrel on 02.09.2008 by Head Constable Govind Sahai (PW2), who alongwith Constable Sushil Kumar (PW4) reached the spot i.e. A-98, Pandav Nagar, Delhi where he met the complainant Lajpat Rai Verma in injured condition, who was bleeding from his head. After preparing injury report, he sent the complainant to LBS Hospital alongwith Constable Sushil. After collecting MLC of the injured, he recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A on which he prepared a ruqqa and got the case FIR registered. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses was recorded. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons. The charge for offence under Section 308 IPC was framed against accused Pawan Chadha whereas charge for offence under Section 323/34 IPC was framed against accused Pawan Chadha, Vikas Chadha and Mukesh Chadha.

6. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses. All the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC pleaded their innocence and alleged false implication in this case. It was alleged that the complainant had slipped from the stairs and received some injuries in the presence of Bunny Mehra who tried to take him to the hospital but the complainant refused and got registered a false case taking advantage of the injuries. The complainant wanted to take money for vacating the premises through Sardar Mangal Singh and Sardar Mahender Singh. In support of their defence one witness, namely, Sardar Mangal Singh (DW1) was examined.

7. Vide impugned judgment, all the three accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinbefore.

Submissions of appellants:

8. Assailing the findings of the learned Trial Court, learned counsel for the appellants submits that out of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the material witnesses were the complainant – Lajpat Rai Verma (PW3), Bunny Mehra (PW6) and Madhu Verma (wife of the complainant) – PW11. It is further submitted that Bunny Mehra did not support the case of the prosecution. As regards, PW11, she in fact is not an eye witness to the incident and has made mat