Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1847
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JJ.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Appellant
Versus
Hari Chand & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. A. 806 of 2015 & 343 of 2016
Decided On : 31-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Radhika Kolluru
For the Respondents: Mr. Azhar Qayum
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of requisite intention or knowledge for the offence under Section 307 IPC, influencing the court's decision and the subsequent amicable settlement.
Headnote:
State - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323/34, 307 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the respondents were convicted under Sections 323/34 IPC for causing injury to the complainant's husband, but acquitted from charges under Section 307 IPC. The parties later entered into an amicable settlement, agreeing to compensate the victim and resolve all disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court convicted the respondents under Section 323 IPC based on testimonies, and the High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the offence under Section 307 IPC could not be made out due to lack of requisite intention or knowledge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the injuries inflicted and the intention of the accused, leading to the consideration of appropriate charges and the subsequent amicable settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of requisite intention or knowledge for the offence under Section 307 IPC, leading to the conviction under Section 323 IPC and the approval of the amicable settlement.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were directed to live in peace and harmony, with the victim being awarded compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme.
G.S. Sistani, J.
1. The present appeals have been filed by the State against the judgment dated 24.11.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case no.39/12, FIR No.332/12 PS Aman Vihar and the order on sentence dated 11.12.2014, by which the respondents were convicted under Sections 323/34 IPC. The respondents were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the injured/complainant and, in default of payment of compensation all the convicts were to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days each under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’); while they were acquitted from charges under Section 307 IPC. The respondents were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount and an undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called by the court and in the meantime they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour.
2. Crl.A. 806/2015 has been filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondents under Section 323 IPC, whereas Crl.A. 343/2016 has been filed by the State, by which the respondents were acquitted under Section 307 IPC. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is as under:
“1. Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Priyanka W/o Hemant. According to the complainant on 27-10-11, she was present at her house alongwith her family. She received a call from her sister-in-law (Nanad) who informed that her husband Hari Chand was beating her. Hearing this, complainant, her husband Hemant, Kanta (her mausi), Tara (mother), Pawan (Devar) and one Dayal Chand Sahani (friend of her devar Pawan) reached at the house of Mamta at about 8:30 p.m to resolve the quarrel.
2. According to the complainant on reaching at the house of Mamta, her husband Hemant asked Mamta about the reason of quarrel. Mamta started weeping and while weeping she started disclosing facts to Hemant. On this Hemant got angry and heated arguments started between Hemant on one side and Mamta's husband Harichand, her devar Manoj and her sister-in-law (Sali) Rukmani on the other side.
3. According to the complainant, Hari Chand said to her husband Hemant that his sister always harass him and that you all had made his life hell and exhorted that “Aaj Me Sara Kissa Khatam Kar Deta Hu, Aaj Me Tumhe Jinda Nahi Chhodunga and asked his brother Manoj to bring a knife. In the meantime quarrel started between Hemant, Harichand and Rukmani. According to the complainant, Rukmani caught hold the hand of Hemant from the left side and in the meantime Manoj brought a knife from the house and handed over the same to Hari Chand and then Manoj caught hold the hand of Hemant from right side and then Hari Chand gave a knife blow in the stomach of Hemant. According to the complainant her husband Hemant started crying with pain and the incident occurred so fast that they could not get a chance to save Hemant. According to the complainant she made a call to the police and they removed Hemant to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital in a private vehicle.
4. F.I.R. bearing No. 332/12, was registered at P.S. Aman Vihar and investigation went underway. During the course of investigation accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
5. On 14-08-2012, a charge U/s 307/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses.”
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/State has submitted that taking into consideration
