Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4893
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, NAJMI WAZIRI, JJ.
Mohd. Imran - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A. 1315 of 2014, CRL.A. 829 of 2012 and CRL.A. 452 of 2013
Decided On : 26-09-2017
For the Appellants :Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate., Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate., Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Naik, APP., 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 under Section 34 IPC and the finding that the fatal injury was caused intentionally and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, leading to the conviction of the appellants for murder.
Headnote:
MURDER - Criminal Appeals - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374(2), 383, 482, 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 392/34, 302/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including sections 374(2), 383, 482, and 374, as well as the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including sections 392/34 and 302/34, in relation to the conviction and sentencing of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for causing stab injuries leading to the death of the deceased during a robbery. The prosecution's case was supported by the testimony of the sole eyewitness, recovery of the weapon of offence, and the refusal of the appellants to participate in T.I.P. proceedings. The appellants denied their involvement and produced alibi witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court rejected the defense set up by the appellants and convicted them based on the consistent and credible testimony of the eyewitness, recovery of the weapon of offence, and the refusal to participate in T.I.P. proceedings. The court found that the fatal injury was caused intentionally and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the recovery of the weapon of offence, the refusal to participate in T.I.P. proceedings, and the shared common intention of the appellants in causing the fatal injury.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of joint liability under Section 34 IPC, finding that the appellants shared a common intention to commit the offence and each played their assigned role in causing the fatal injury. The injury was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, leading to the application of clause (3) of Section 300 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellants were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.
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 'Cr.P.C'), 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, 1973 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, 1973 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, 1973 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 Panda
