Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, NAJMI WAZIRI, JJ.
Mohd. Imran – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A. NO. 1315 of 2014, 829 of 2012, 452 of 2013
Decided On : 26-09-2017
For the Appellant :Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Naik, APP with Inspector Bharat Meena, SHO, P.S. Swaroop Nagar and Inspector D.K. Tejwan, P.S. Pandav Nagar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of joint liability and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC to uphold the conviction of the appellants for murder.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Appeals - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374(2), 383, 482, 302/34, 392/34, 302/34, 302/34, 428 - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court analyzes the evidence, including witness testimony, postmortem reports, and the conduct of the appellants, to establish the shared common intention of the appellants in causing the fatal injury to the deceased. The court applies the legal principles of joint liability and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC to uphold the conviction of the appellants for murder.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for causing stab injuries to the deceased during a robbery, resulting in his death. The prosecution's case was supported by the testimony of a sole eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the conduct of the appellants. The appellants denied their involvement and presented alibis and alternative explanations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the eyewitness to be consistent, credible, and truthful, and rejected the defense set up by the appellants. The court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellants based on the shared common intention to cause the fatal injury to the deceased during the commission of the robbery.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the application of joint liability and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the appellants' guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles of joint liability and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC to establish the appellants' shared intention to cause the fatal injury to the deceased during the commission of the robbery. The court also emphasized that intention need not necessarily involve pre-meditation.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder, dismissing the appeals with no order as to costs.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present batch of criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal Nos. 1315/2014, 829/2012 and 452/2013 instituted under the provisions of section 374(2); sections 374(2), 383 read with section 482; and section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), assail the judgment dated 07.09.2011 and order on sentence dated 13.09.2011, rendered by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case no.144/10, arising out of FIR No.131/10.
2. By way of the impugned judgment dated 07.09.2011 and order on sentence dated 13.09.2011, Mohd. Imran (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant No.1’); Mukesh alias Karka (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant No.2’); and Akram (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant No.3’), were convicted and sentenced as follows: I) Appellant No.1
(i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 392/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.1 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.
(ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.1 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.
The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Furthermore, the benefit of Section 428 CrPC has been granted to the Appellant No.1. II) Appellant No.2
(i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under the provision of Section 397 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.
(ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.
The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Furthermore, the benefit of Section 428 CrPC has been granted to the Appellant No.2. III) Appellant No.3
(i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 392/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.3 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.
(ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.3 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.
The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Furthermore, the benefit of Section 428 CrPC has been granted to the Appellant No.3 as well.
3. The fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2010, the Appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘Appellants’), sharing common intention, caused stab injuries on the body of Dhiraj s/o Mr. Ram Nandan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) leading to his death. The injuries were caused with a knife [Ex.P9], whilst committing robbery, at Sanjay Jheel, Mayur Vihar Phase-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sanjay Jheel/crime spot’). After committing the murder, the appellants took the mobile phone, Rs.60/-70/-, and the school ATM card of the deceased and absconded from the crime spot. The entire incident was witnessed by Ms. Sapna (PW-6), who was present with the deceased at the time of the incident.
4. A PCR call [Ex.PW13/A] was made at the instance of PW-6 by Mr. Satish (PW-3); who was playing cricket at some distance from the crime spot, and Daily Diary No.13A was lodged at Police Station Pandav Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter ref
