Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
Harish Chandra @ Suraj - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. 482 of 2015
Decided On : 17-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Saahila Lamba
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Katyal
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights without premeditation and without the offender acting in a cruel or unusual manner.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 300 - Section 304 - [MURDER] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [IPC 1860 - Section 302, Section 300, Section 304] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 302 IPC and found that the case would be covered under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The judgment highlighted the legal principles of sudden fight, absence of premeditation, and undue advantage, and modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of a person by inflicting blows with a stone. The prosecution's case was primarily based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court had rightly recorded the conviction of the appellant based on ample evidence. The court found that the appellant had inflicted blows upon the deceased using a stone, resulting in his death.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of Section 302 IPC and whether the case would be covered under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the case satisfied the requirements of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, including a sudden fight, absence of premeditation, and the appellant not acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The conviction was modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the orders of conviction and sentence were modified. The appellant's sentence was reduced to imprisonment for 7 years.
G.S. Sistani, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed under Sections 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment dated 07.03.2014 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) (described as Section 300 Secondly in the judgment of the Trial Court) and by an order of sentence dated 10.03.2014 the appellant has been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC for committing the offence under Second definition under Section 300 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is as under:
“1. As per prosecution, on 19.05.2012, an information was received that one person has assaulted to another by stone on footpath, Mathura Road and this information was recorded vide DD No.24A, PS Tilak Marg and same was marked to SI Ramji Lal for further necessary action. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Lokesh reached the spot and sent the injured to RML Hospital through PCT Van. In the meanwhile, another call was received from the duty constable RML Hospital, vide DD No.28A that the injured from Mathura Road has been declared as brought dead vide MLC No.E/85709/12 in the RML Hospital. The same was marked to Insp. B.M. Bahuguna for further necessary action. Thereafter, Insp. B.M. Bahuguna(IO of the case) alongwith Ct. Sombir reached RML Hospital and collected the MLC of unknown male, aged about 35 years. As per the MLC, the alleged history, as given in the MLC, was physical assault and nature of injury as blunt. The body of the deceased was inspected and no article, disclosing the identity of the deceased, was recovered from the possession of the deceased. No eye witness of the incident was found in the hospital. The photographs of the deceased were taken and the dead body was preserved in the mortuary for identification. Thereafter, IO went to the spot, i.e., Mathura Road, opposite Gate No.4, National Stadium and found SI Ramjilal alongwith the complainant and accused. The statement of Kundan Jaiswal was recorded. As per the statement of Kundan Jaiswal, he is doing engineering from NIIT, Preet Vihar, Delhi. On 19.05.2012, he alongwith his elder brother Chandan came to the Chandni Chowk for shopping. On return from the Chandni Chowk, he hired TSR and at around 9.00 PM, he along with his brother reached near red light, Bhairo Road, T-point, Mathura Road in the TSR No.DL-1RJ-3892. He also stated that after some distance from the red light, on the side of the footpath, a person was having a big heavy stone in both his hand and that person was giving beatings to the other person by that stone. The other person was lying on the footpath. The complainant further stated in his statement that the person, who was having stone in his hands, hit upon the other person, who was lying on the footpath 2-3 times with that stone. The complainant further stated that he had stopped the TSR and with the help of his brother and TSR driver Sunil Dhawan, apprehended the accused. The injured person was unconscious, as due to excess bleeding from his head and mouth. The complainant has called on 100 number from his mobile and informed the police about the incident. Thereafter, the accused was handed over to the police. The injured person was taken to the hospital by PCR van. The accused has disclosed his name as Suraj, s/o Sh. Kishori. Thereafter, on the basis of the statement of the complainant and MLD of the deceased, case u/s 302 IPC was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, the crime team was also called for inspection of scene of crime and the photograph of the scene of crime were taken. At the instance of the complainant, site plan had also been prepared and scaled site plan was prepared by the draftsman. Accused was arrested at the spot on 20.05.2012. The disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded. It was disclosed by the accused, in his disclosure statement that he is a
