Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 743
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
MANOJ & ANR. - Appellants
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) - Respondents
CRL.A. 822 of 2002 & CRL.M.A.2996 of 2003 With CRL.A. 836, 929, 937 of 2002
Decided On : 11-04-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar and Mr. Vikas Walia, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - Murder - Common object - Evidence of interested witnesses - Appreciation - Delay in lodging FIR - Effect - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Ingredients - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 304 Part-II, 437 A.
Fact of the Case:
The incident took place at 6:30 pm on 16th September 1996. According to the prosecution, all the accused persons arrived at House No.433, Village Bawana, Delhi which was the house of Om Prakash (PW-6). While Manjeet (A1) and Suranjan (A2) were stated to be having knives in their hands, Gulab (A6) and Satpal (A8) had rods. Mahesh (A5) had a lathi. Manoj (A3), Ajeet, Jasbir (A4) along with Ganeshi (since deceased) and Ram Niwas (A7) are stated to have entered the house of PW-6. Gulab (A6) purportedly exhorted that they should be killed so that they may not be able to attend the Court proceedings scheduled for the following day. Consequent to this, Manjeet (A1) and Suranjan (A2) are stated to have attacked the deceased with a knife while Mahesh (A5), Gulab (A6), Satpal (A8) attacked him with rods and lathis as a result of which the deceased fell to the ground. It is then stated that Manoj (A3) and Jasbir (A4) caught hold of his feet and stated that Sunil should not remain alive today. Thereafter, all the persons started assaulting the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The Court is not satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove that all of the accused came together to form an unlawful assembly and further that the said unlawful assembly was with a common object of killing Sunil. With none of the other persons in the victim’s family receiving any injury whatsoever and with medical evidence not corroborating the version of the eye witnesses in this regard and given the fact that there being previous enmity between the parties may give rise to a tendency to make embellishments, the Court acquits all of the other accused of the offences with which they were charged.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons came together to form an unlawful assembly with a common object of killing Sunil? 2. Whether the evidence of the interested witnesses is reliable and trustworthy? 3. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR has affected the prosecution case? 4. Whether the offence committed by Manjeet (A1) falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution has failed to establish the common object of the unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the eye witnesses is not reliable and trustworthy as they are interested witnesses and there is a delay in lodging the FIR. 2. The delay in lodging the FIR has given rise to doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses and has affected the prosecution case. 3. The offence committed by Manjeet (A1) falls under Section 304 Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) as the intention to kill Sunil was not premeditated and the knife blow was inflicted in the heat of passion.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order on sentence of the trial Court stands modified in the above terms. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the Appellants stand discharged. A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6 and A-7 shall fulfil the requirements of Section 437 A CrPC to the satisfaction of the trial Court at the earliest. The appeals and pending application are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. The trial Court record be returned forthwith together with a certified copy of this judgment.
S. Muralidhar, J.
Introduction
1. These four appeals are directed against common judgment dated 26th September 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.36/2000 arising out of FIR No.379/1996 registered at Police Station (‘PS’) Narela, convicting the Appellants Manjeet Singh (A1), Suranjan Singh (A2), Manoj (A3), Jasbir (A4), Mahesh (A5), Gulab (A6), Ram Niwas (A7) and Satpal (A8) of the offences under Sections 452, 147, 148, and 302/149 IPC. Manjeet Singh (A1) was also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act.
2. These appeals are also directed against order dated 28th September 2002 whereby for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 10 months. For each of the offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC, each of them was sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. For the offence under Section 452 IPC, each of the Appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months each. Manjeet Singh (A1) was additionally sentenced under Section 25 Arms Act to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. It must be mentioned at the outset that apart from the aforementioned eight accused, one more accused, i.e. Ganeshi, the father of Mahesh (A5) and Ram Niwas (A7), was also arrayed as an accused and sent up for trial. However, he expired during the pendency of the trial. The tenth accused was Ajeet (Juvenile in Conflict with the Law (JCL) at the time of the offence). The trial against Ajeet (JCL) was separated out and took place before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Court is informed that Ajeet was ultimately acquitted by the JJB.
Charges
4. The charges framed against all the nine accused were that on 16th September 1996 at around 6:30 pm at Village Bawana they formed an unlawful assembly with a view to preventing Vijay (PW-9) and his family members from appearing and pursuing the criminal case which was pending trial in which PW-9 was the injured; that at the time of being members of the unlawful assembly, they were armed with deadly weapons thereby committing offence punishable under Section 147 and 148 IPC. The third charge was that pursuant to the common object of the unlawful assembly, the nine accused committed house trespass at House No.433, Village Bawana thereby committing an offence under Section 149 IPC. The fourth charge was that pursuant to the common object of unlawful assembly, they committed the murder of Sunil @ Pintoo (‘the deceased’) thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. A separate charge was framed against A1 for possessing a knife in contravention of the Arms Act thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act.
5. During the pendency of the present appeals, Mahesh (A5) expired. The present appeals are by seven of the accused i.e. Manoj (A3) (Crl.A.No.822/2002), Suranjan Singh (A2) (Crl.A.No.929/2002), Manjeet Singh (A1) (Crl.A.937/2002) and Ram Niwas (A7), Satpal (A8), Jasbir (A4) and Gulab (A6) (Crl.A.No.836/2002).
Background
6. The background to the present case was that there was an earlier incident in 1994 in which Manoj (A3), Suranjan (A2), and Mahesh (A5) had a quarrel with Vijay (PW-9), the son of Vidya (PW-3), the wife of Om Prakash (PW-6). Vijay’s elder brother was Sunil (the deceased). In the quarrel, Vijay had received injuries and an FIR was registered against A2, A3 and A5 under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC. A charge sheet had
