Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
SATISH KUMAR - Appellant
Vs.
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 136/2016
Decided on : 13-5-2016
Mr. S.N. Gupta & Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocates
Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and trustworthiness of the dying declaration, the interpretation of the Indian Penal Code regarding murder and culpable homicide, and the application of medical evidence in determining the cause of death and nature of injuries.
Headnote:
Dying Declaration - Murder - Section 302 IPC, Section 482 CrPC - 32, 299, 300 IPC - The court discussed the admissibility of the dying declaration, the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide. The court concluded that the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer was trustworthy, believable, and admissible in law. The court also analyzed the medical evidence to determine the cause of death and the nature of the injuries. The court ultimately convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302, sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased, based on the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the dying declaration to be trustworthy and admissible in law, and the medical evidence supported the cause of death and nature of the injuries. The court concluded that the appellant should be convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302, sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility and trustworthiness of the dying declaration, the nature of the injuries and cause of death, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the trustworthiness of the dying declaration, the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and nature of the injuries, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide as per the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
1. Present appeal was listed for hearing on an application filed by the appellant seeking for regular bail. Both the parties urged that they were ready with the matter and instead of hearing the bail application the appeal be set down for final hearing. On request the appeal is heard finally.
2. This is an appeal preferred under Section 374 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed against the judgment dated 13.07.2015 and order on sentence dated 16.07.2015 passed by ASJ (South-West), Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 40/13, by virtue of which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months.
3. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the trial court are as under:
“On 21.12.2012, on receipt of DD No. 25A regarding admission of injured Pankaj with stabbed injuries at DDU hospital, ASI Onkar Singh alongwith Ct. Satpal went to the DDU hospital, where injured Pankaj was found admitted vide MLC No. 26722/12 and he was declared unfit for statement and accordingly the said DD No. 25A was kept pending. On 22.12.2012, injured Pankaj was declared fit for statement accordingly ASI Onkar Singh recorded the statement (Ex. PW18/B) of injured Pankaj, wherein he stated that in the month of November, Satish had a quarrel with his brother Karan and he had beaten him at that time and due to said quarrel, there was tension between him and Satish. He further stated that on 21.12.2012 at about 7:30 P.M., he had gone to meet Vicky and at Pandit Chowk, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, Delhi, Satish met him and he had an altercation with him and during the said quarrel, Satish stabbed him with a knife as a result of which he sustained injuries in his abdomen and fell down and his friend Raj Kumar got him admitted in the hospital. In his statement, injured Pankaj also stated that while stabbing, Satish was saying that “Tujhe Upar Pahuncha Daita Hun” and that Satish had committed deadly assault upon him and has stabbed him with a knife and caused injuries to him and legal action may be taken against him.
On the basis of the abovesaid statement (Ex. PW18/B), a rukka (Ex. PW18/C) was prepared by ASI Onkar Singh and the same was sent to P.S. Palam Village through Ct. Rajesh for the registration of the case and accordingly, the present case was registered vide FIR No.349/12 at P.S Palam Village and the case was assigned to ASI Onkar Singh, for investigation. On 02.01.2013, information regarding death of Pankaj was received from DDU hospital vide DD No. 23A and accordingly, Section 302 IPC was added in this case and investigation of the case was taken over by Insp. Sunder Singh, SHO, PS : Palam Village. In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 21.12.2012 at about 7:30 P.M., near H. No. RZF-1130, Lohia Marg, near Pandit Chowk, Raj NagarII, Palam Colony, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village, accused Satish Kumar stabbed deceased Pankaj with a knife with intention to kill him and consequent to the said injuries, deceased Pankaj expired in DDU hospital on 02.01.2013. 2. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. After committal, the arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, charge for committing the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC was framed against accused Satish Kumar by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, to which the said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”
4. To bring home the guilt of the appellant the prosecution examined twenty seven witnesses in all. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied all the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case.
5. Challenging the findings of the trial court
