Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, C. HARI SHANKAR, JJ.
Arjun & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl. A. 983 of 2015; 1103 of 2016 & Crl. L.P. 2 of 2016
Decided On : 14-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Anirudh Tanwar
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Katyal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to determine the nature of the offence and the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under IPC Sections 304/34 and 323/34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an altercation between the deceased and the accused on the day of Holi, resulting in the deceased being stabbed and subsequently succumbing to his injuries. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 304/34 and 323/34 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the incident was not pre-meditated and occurred in the heat of the moment, leading to a conviction under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issues: The main issue was whether the offence amounted to murder under Section 300 IPC, and whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, considering the sudden fight, absence of premeditation, and lack of cooling off period. The Court also analyzed the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and leave to appeal, upholding the conviction under Sections 304/34 and 323/34 of the IPC. The Court found no infirmity in the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
G.S. Sistani, J.
1. Two appeals (Crl.A. 983/2015 and 1103/2016) have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 05.06.2015 in SC 33/2013 arising out of FIR 119/2013 PS Geeta Colony and the order on sentence dated 04.07.2015, by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 304/34 and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). By the impugned order on sentence, the appellants stand sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months; and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. The State has also filed a leave to appeal (Crl.L.P. 2/2016) assailing the same judgment and order on sentence on the ground that the appellants should have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and consequently, a sentence of imprisonment for life should have been awarded.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be addressed according to their position in Crl. L.P.2/2016. The State will be referred to as the appellant; appellant in Crl.A. 983/2015 Arjun as respondent no.2 or ‘respondent Arjun’; and appellant in Crl.A. 1103/2016 as respondent no.1 or ‘respondent Loliya’.
4. Though separate appeals had been filed, common arguments were addressed by the counsel for the respondents Arjun and Loliya. After some hearing in the matter, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the respondents have been in incarceration for a period of more than 4 years and they have instructions not to contest their appeals on merit. However, both the counsel for the respondents have strongly contested the leave to appeal filed by the State. Mr. Katyal, learned counsel for the State, has addressed arguments in the leave to appeal.
5. Before the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties can be noticed, we deem it appropriate to state the case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court, which is as under:
“… Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.03.2013 on receipt of a PCR call, SI Praveen Chauhan reached at the spot i.e. Jhuggi, 6 Block, Geeta Colony where it was revealed that injured persons had been removed to hospital. Statement of the complainant Raju Dubey was recorded in Hospital. In his statement, he stated that on 27.03.2013, being festival of Holi, he was present at his house. At about 3.30 p.m., some altercation took place between his brother Sonu and his neighbour accused Arjun and both of them were pacified by the neighbours. Accused Arjun threatened Sonu while leaving by saying “Tu Mujhe Nahi Janta Hai, Mujhse Dusmani Mehngi Padegi (You do not know me, enmity with me will cost you a lot).
2. Complainant further stated that after sometime, his brother Sonu was going to the nearby tap to have a bath, when accused Arjun and accused Loliya, whom he knew from earlier, came there. Accused Loliya, was having danda in his hand. Both the accused persons started beating his brother Sonu and when Sonu protested, accused Loliya caught Sonu and accused Arjun took out a knife from Dub of his pant and stabbed Sonu by uttering that he would finish him that day. When the complainant tried to save his brother, accused Loliya and Arjun also attacked him. He raised alarm and people gathered at the spot. Someone gave a ring to police at number 100. PCR van came and removed both the injured to the hospital. 3. On the basis of statement of complainant Raju Dubey, FIR under section 323/307/34 IPC was registered. Later on, injured Sonu succumbed to his injuries on 30.03.2013 and Section 302 IPC was added. Postmortem on the dead body of Sonu was got conducted. On 3.4.2013, accused Arjun surrendered and he was arrested. During his police
