Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
Sandeep Kumar @ Sonu - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT, New Delhi - Respondent
Crl. A. 124 of 2015
Decided On : 17-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Sharma
For the Respondent: Ms. Radhika Kolluru
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's act of firing at the deceased from a close distance constituted an offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC, and the court considered mitigating circumstances to modify the sentence imposed on the appellant.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 304 Part-I, 324 and 509 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act - [MORAL POLICING] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [IPC Sections 304 Part-I, 324, 509, Arms Act Section 27] - The court discussed the evidence and found the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I IPC for firing at the deceased from a close distance, and acquitted the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act as the weapon used was licensed. The court also modified the sentence imposed on the appellant based on mitigating circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 304 Part-I, 324 and 509 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act for firing at the deceased and injuring another person during a scuffle at a commercial complex. The appellant appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing that the incident was accidental and the sentence was too harsh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I IPC for firing at the deceased from a close distance, and acquitted the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act as the weapon used was licensed. The court modified the sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's actions constituted an offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's act of firing at the deceased from a close distance fell under Section 304 Part-I IPC, and acquitted the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court also considered mitigating circumstances to modify the sentence imposed on the appellant.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modified the order on conviction and sentence, and reduced the appellant's sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven and a half years.
G.S. Sistani, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2014 and the order on sentence dated 01.12.2014 passed by the Trial Court in SC 96/2013 arising out of FIR 169/2011 PS Bharat Nagar. By the former, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 304 Part-I, 324 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959. For the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine to the tune of Rs.1 lac, in default of payment of fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years; for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; and for the offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, as noted down by the learned Trial Court, is as under:
“(2) The case of the prosecution is that [sic: on] 20.08.2011 at 3:14 PM an information was received at Police Station Bharat Nagar regarding a firing incident pursuant to which SI Satish along with Ct. Ram Avtar reached the spot i.e. English Wine Shop, Nimri Colony, Commercial Complex where he found two vehicles parked there. On inquiry he came to that one vehicle was the one in which the accused had come and one vehicle was belonging to the deceased Virender. HC Devender met at the spot and he informed SI Satish that the injured had been shifted by the PCR official and one boy had been apprehended by the name of Sandeep who had allegedly fired at the injured. In the meantime the SHO Inspector Lalit Joshi also reached the spot and had also inquired the matter at the spot. Ct. Ram Avtar and HC Devender were the left at the spot to safe guard the same whereas SI Satish along with SHO reached Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where they collected two MLCs i.e. one of Virender who was declared brought dead and the other was of Nisha, the injured. Nisha was fit for making the statement and her statement was recorded wherein she had alleged that while she was sitting with the deceased Virender in the Maruti Esteem Car, the accused Sandeep had started [sic: stared] at her and passed obscene comments which was objected to by Virender on which the accused Sandeep had fired upon Virender in which incident she had also received injuries. On the basis of the statement of Nisha Verma the present case was registered.
(3) The Crime Team was also called to the spot who reached the spot and inspected the same and also photographed the scene of crime. The Maruti Esteem bearing No. DL9CB0129 belonging to deceased was also inspected by the Investigating Officer after the inspection by the Crime Team. Thereafter various exhibits were lifted from the spot of incident and were taken into possession. The Esteem Car and the Maruti Omni Van were also taken into possession. The accused Sandeep @ Sonu who was in the custody of HC Devender, was then interrogated by the Investigating Officer and thereafter the accused was arrested in the present case. From the personal search of accused one licence of Arms was also recovered which was taken into possession vide a separate seizure memo. The licensed revolver of the accused was checked and was found to be containing three live cartridges and one empty cartridge after which the sketch of the revolver was prepared and thereafter the cartridges and the revolver were sei
