2013 Supreme(Del) 1977
DELHI HIGH COURT
Sanjiv Khanna, Siddharth Mridul, JJ.
Tajinder Singh @ Kaka - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. Appeal No. 796 of 2012 & Crl. Appeal No. 738 of 2012
Decided On : 20-03-2013
For the Appellant : Mr. Sumeet Verma, Ad#31;vocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Lao , Ms. Richa Kapoor APP.
For the Appellant : Mr. R.K. Dikshit, Advo#31;cate.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 34 - [MURDER] - [Homicidal death of Amarjeet Singh] - [Section 302, Section 34] - [The court discussed the evidence and testimony of witnesses, the application of Section 34 IPC, and the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 Part I IPC. The court found that the appellants shared common intention and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC but converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC based on the nature of the injury and lack of clear intention to cause the fatal injury.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Amarjeet Singh. The deceased was fatally injured on 19th November, 2007, and the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fined. The court analyzed the evidence, witness testimonies, and the application of legal provisions to reach its decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants shared common intention and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC but converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC based on the nature of the injury and lack of clear intention to cause the fatal injury.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellants' involvement in the murder, the application of Section 34 IPC, and the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 Part I IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC and distinguished between Section 302 and Section 304 Part I IPC based on the nature of the injury and the intention to cause the fatal injury.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC but converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellants were sentenced to imprisonment and fined accordingly.
Sanjiv Khanna, J.;—
The appellants Bhupender Singh and Tajinder Singh impugn their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Amarjeet Singh on 19th November, 2007. By order of sentence dated 14th November, 2011, the two appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo Simple Imprisonment of one year each.
2. Homicidal death of Amarjeet Singh aged about 17 years cannot really be disputed and has been established beyond doubt by Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-14), and Ranjeet Singh (PW-3). PW-14 had along with Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasia conducted post mortem on the dead body of Amarjeet Singh and proved the post mortem report (Ex.PW-14/A), which was signed by him as well as Dr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasia. Cause of death as opined was cardiogenic shock (haemorrhagic shock) caused by rupture of heart consequent upon stabbing by a sharp pointed weapon like knife.
3. Ranjeet Singh (PW-3), father of Amarjeet Singh has deposed that his son was murdered on 19th November, 2007 and he identified the dead body of his son at DDU Hospital Mortuary. His statement was marked Ex.PW-3/A. MLC (Ex.PW-21/A) of deceased Amarjeet Singh was proved by Dr. Ajay Sharma (PW-21). The MLC records that the patient was brought dead by his brother Tirlok Singh with history of assault on 19th November, 2007 at about 9.00 P.M. in DDU Hospital. The MLC was prepared by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, who had left service, but his signatures and handwriting were identified by PW-21 as Dr. Sanjeev Kumar had worked under his supervision.
4. On the question of the involvement of the two appellants, the prosecution relies upon the testimony of Tirlok Singh (PW-1), Amar Singh (PW-6) and to a limited extent statements by Vikram (PW-2) and Deepak Sahdev @ Vicky (PW-4).
5. PW-6 has deposed that he was a driver by profession and on 19th November, 2007 at about 8.15 P.M. when he was going to his house via Dharampuri Road on foot from the side of Nala, he saw the two appellants, whom he identified, along with two others, were running towards the Nala from the side of Dharampuri Road. He knew all four of them. Bittoo, who faced trial before the Juvenile Justice Board, was carrying a knife in his hand. When PW-6 reached at the corner of the street, he found that Amarjeet Singh was lying injured in a pool of blood. Amarjeet Singh was rushed to the DDU Hospital by Vicky in his van. PW-6 knew the two appellants prior to the incident. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his statement was recorded between 11 A.M.-12.00 noon on 20th November, 2007. He did not apprehend the appellants as he did not know what had happened till then. Tirlok Singh, he deposed, was his distant relative, but he denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely being a relative of the deceased.
6. Tirlok Singh (PW-1) has testified that on 19th November, 2007, he had gone to the house of his relative Amarjeet Kaur to deliver vegetables and at about 8.15 P.M. he came back and was in the street (gali). He noticed that the two appellants, Deepu and Bittoo (the last two have faced or are facing trial before the Juvenile Justice Board) were escorting his brother Amarjeet Singh towards the gali. Thereafter, he saw that the appellant-Tajinder, Deepu and Bittoo had caught hold of his brother and Bhupinder inflicted an injury on the left side chest of his brother with some pointed object. His brother shouted for help and fell down on ground. He raised an alarm. The accused persons ran away from the spot. PW-1 took his brother to the DDU Hospital, but his brother was declared as brought dead. The police recorded his statement (Ex.PW-1/A) in the hospital. The police prepared site plan at his instance on 5th February, 2008. PW-1 correctly identified the two appellants, who were present in the trial court. He further deposed that Bhupender had given the pointed object blow to Bittoo while the