Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNIL GAUR, PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JJ.
Kamal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondents
Crl. A. 412 & 441 of 2017
Decided On : 17-02-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sumeet Verma, Mr. Aman Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Ahlawat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimony, medical evidence, and the intention of the accused in determining the appropriate conviction and sentencing.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 302/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's reliance on evidence of the complainant, medical evidence, call detail records, and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the witness testimony, medical evidence, and the intention of the accused to determine the appropriate conviction and sentencing for each appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution presented evidence of a fatal attack on the deceased by the appellants, relying on witness testimony, medical evidence, and call detail records. The appellants denied the charges but did not provide evidence in their defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the witness testimony of the complainant to be reliable and upheld the conviction of one appellant under Section 302/34 of IPC. The court altered the conviction of the other appellant to Section 325 of IPC based on the lack of intention or knowledge to cause death.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of witness testimony, the attribution of injuries to the appellants, and the intention of the accused in causing the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the witness testimony, medical evidence, and the intention of the accused to determine the appropriate conviction and sentencing for each appellant.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentencing of one appellant under Section 302/34 of IPC and altered the conviction of the other appellant to Section 325 of IPC.
Sunil Gaur, J.
1. The above captioned two appeals arise out of common impugned judgment of 28th November, 2016, vide which both the appellants have been held guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and vide impugned order of 30th November, 2016, they have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine with default clause.
2. Since these two appeals arise out of common impugned judgment and order, therefore, with the consent of counsel representing both the sides, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The substratum of the prosecution case, as noticed in the impugned judgment, is as under:-
“2. Case of the prosecution is that on 10.12.2013 at about 8:00 pm. Surender Nagar (the complainant) came to Shani Bazar, Near Government School in his vehicle to collect the fare of his vehicle and once he reached Kirari Road, he saw his nephew Satish who was sitting on his motorcycle no.DL4SBT-2806 and was talking to Kamlesh w/o Kamal. The moment he parked his vehicle in front of meat shop and came out, he noticed that Kamal (the accused no.2/husband of Kamlesh) and one more boy attacked upon Satish. Accused no.2 was carrying a knife in his hand and gave the knife blows on the stomach and thigh of Satish. The boy who accompanied the accused no.1 put his hand on the chick of Satish and inflicted blow with some sharp object. To save himself, Satish ran towards the market and fell down unconsciously. The complainant raised alarm. In the meantime, two police officials, who were patrolling in the area came on foot at the spot. The complainant along with the said police officials apprehended the accused no.2 and his associate. The complainant pulled the knife from the hand of the accused no.2. On inquiry, name of second boy came to know as Rahul (the accused no.1). Ct. Nausahd Ali removed Satish in the hospital in an auto rickshaw (TSR) where he was declared dead.”
4. During trial, prosecution has relied upon evidence of complainant – Surender Nagar (PW25), who happens to have witnessed this incident, the medical evidence and the other evidence on record. Injured Satish was medically examined by Dr. Ankur Jain and MLC prepared by him is proved by Dr. Gupta (PW17). Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW18) had conducted post mortem on the body of deceased and post mortem report prepared by him has been proved by Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW22).
5. Prosecution has relied upon evidence of Nodal Officers-PW14 and PW15 and ‘Call Detail Record’ of mobile phones of deceased and that of Kamlesh, wife of appellant-Kamal. Madhu (PW20), sister of deceased, in her evidence has asserted that mobile phone No. 9716375206 belonged to her but it was being used by the deceased. It has come in the evidence of Nodal Officer Chander Shekhar (PW15) that mobile No. 9818251808 was in the name of Mrs. Raj (PW21), mother-in-law of appellant- Kamal. Prosecution has relied upon ‘Call Detail Record’ (EX PW14/C) to show that on 9th and 10th December, 2013, various calls were made from mobile No.9716375206 (which was with the deceased) on mobile No.9818251808, which was issued in the name of Mrs. Raj (PW21), mother-in-law of appellant-Kamal, who has deposed that she had given this mobile number to her daughter Kamlesh (PW26) for her personal use. The forensic evidence on record reveals that the recovered knife (Ex-1) was blood stained.
6. Though it is the prosecution case that there were illicit relations between Kamlesh -wife of appellant-Kamal and the deceased but Kamlesh (PW26), has not supported the prosecution case. However, trial court has relied upon deposition of eye witness-Surender Nagar (PW25), medical evidence and the other evidence on record to hold that both the appellants are guilty of commission of offences in question.
7. Both the appellants in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have denied the prosecution case but have not chosen to lead any evidence in their defence.
8. The challenge to the impugned judgm
