Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
PAWAN KUMAR – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI –RESPONDENT
CRL.A. 1424 OF 2012
Decided On : 28-07-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. U.M. Tripathi
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201 - [302, 201] - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court analyzed the evidence and circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant, including the medical evidence, call records, and the nature of the altercation leading to the incident. The court applied Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to modify the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC, considering the sudden fight and absence of premeditation. The conviction and sentence were modified accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the offence of causing the death of his wife and tampering with evidence. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellant's history of beating his wife, the circumstances leading to the incident, and the postmortem examination findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including the medical evidence, call records, and nature of the altercation, supported the guilt of the appellant. The court applied Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to modify the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC, considering the sudden fight and absence of premeditation.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, and the modification of the conviction and sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to modify the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC, considering the sudden fight and absence of premeditation. The medical evidence, call records, and nature of the altercation were crucial in establishing the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the orders of conviction and sentence were modified. The appellant's conviction was modified from Section 302 to one under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence was reduced to imprisonment for the period already undergone. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed under Sections 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment dated 07.09.2012 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and the order of sentence dated 25.09.2012 whereby the appellant has been sentenced under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months; and under Section 201 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for five years and also fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
2. The Trial Court had noticed the case of the prosecution as under:
“1. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2010, on receiving DD No.44B, dated 21.09.2010, PS Shahbad Dairy, SI Ajay along with Ct. Guljari reached at the spot i.e. H.No.118(A), Harijan Basti, Barwala, Delhi, where on the first floor of the house, he found one body of a lady namely Manju wife of Pawan. One nylon rope was found in the neck of deceased, which was tied from the Khunti from one end and other end of the rope was tied with the iron kada (ring). SI Ajay called the crime team, which inspected the spot and took photographs. He seized the nylon rope after cutting the rope. Father of the deceased was informed and dead body was sent to the BJRM Mortuary. He inquired from the father of the deceased and recorded his statement. The dead body got released to the deceased's family members after postmortem examination.
2. In his statement, Shri Jage Ram stated that, he was residing in the village Shikarpur, PS Chawla, Delhi and deceased Manju is his daughter, who was married with Pawan in June 2002 and from the said wedlock they had two sons namely Luv and Kush aged about 7 years and 6 years respectively. He further stated that Pawan used to beat her daughter. Three months prior to the incident also he gave beatings to his wife Manju and thereafter left her to their house and only fifteen days prior to the incident accused Pawan took back Manju after giving assurance that he will keep their daughter well. On 21.09.2010 at 3.30 am Pawan made a call to him that Manju has committed suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, he and his relatives came to the house of Pawan and found his daughter hanged with rope, which was tied with Khunti (iron ring). He further stated that on the intervening night of 20/21.09.2010 her daughter had made a call to her brother in law (Jija) Ved prakash and told him that, Pawan has brutally beaten her and went out of the house by saying that, 'he will kill her'. Therefore, he has suspicion that Pawan has hanged his daughter after killing her.
3. On the basis of statement of Jage Ram (father of the deceased), SI Ajay (PW-18) prepared rukka and got the FIR 203/2010 registered at PS Shahbad Dairy under Sections 302/201 IPC. Further investigation was assigned to the Ins.Rakesh Rawat (PW-19), who reached at the spot with SI Mahender Pratap (PW-6), SI Ajay Singh and Ct.Anand. He prepared the site plan and collected the photographs. Appellant was arrested on 27.09.2010 and his statement was recorded wherein he stated that he had brought the deceased back from her parental house about 15 days before the incident and thereafter, her behaviour had changed causing stress to the appellant. On the date of the incident, he had returned from work in the afternoon to find that the deceased was missing; when she came back an altercation took place in which the appellant hit the deceased with an iron scale. Then both slept in different rooms and after waking up at about 6 AM, he woke up the deceased and asked for tea. The deceased angrily went to the other room. The appellant got angry, went to the room and a scuffle ensued, in which the head of the deceas
