Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Rahul - Appellant
Versus
State Nct Of Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2017
Decided on : 22-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Sumant De, Adv., Vivek Agarwal, Adv., Meenakshi Chauhan, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of mens rea and the assessment of the sufficiency of injuries to cause death, which influenced the court's decision in modifying the sentence.
Headnote:
Mens Rea - Conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC - Mohd. Sharif v. State - Section 304 Part-II IPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the testimony of various eye-witnesses, the injuries on the body of the deceased, the process of law set into motion, the post-mortem report, and the FSL report. The key legal provisions interpreted include mens rea, sufficient injuries to cause death, and the conduct of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC for causing the death of the deceased in a scuffle over snatching of ganja. The court found that the injuries on the deceased were commensurate to a scuffle, and the conduct of the appellant fleeing from the spot indicated guilty conduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-III IPC but modified the sentence to the period undergone, considering the circumstances in which the offence was conducted.
Issues: The issues revolved around establishing mens rea, determining the sufficiency of injuries to cause death, and evaluating the conduct of the accused in the scuffle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the injuries on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and the conduct of the appellant fleeing from the spot indicated guilty conduct.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of upholding the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-III IPC, and the sentence of the appellant was modified to the period undergone.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. By the present appeal, Rahul challenges the impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2017 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC in FIR No. 274/2016 registered at PS Model Town and the order on sentence dated 6th March, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per the testimony of the various eye-witnesses, the deceased Arjun gave a kick blow to the appellant first which resulted in a quarrel therefore no mens rea has been established on part of the appellant. He further contends that Appellant was not the aggressor and only one blow has been attributed to the him which is not sufficient to cause multiple injuries. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court reported as Mohd. Sharif v. State, (2011) 1 JCC 529.
3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that there are multiple injuries on the body of the deceased as per the MLC and the injuries have been opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. Process of law was set into motion on 5th May 2016 at about 12:50 A.M. when information was received regarding Arjun being admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital by his wife Baby and the doctor declaring him brought dead. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No.4B (Ex.PW-13/A) and was assigned to ASI Krishan Chand. He along with Ct. Trilok went to Hindu Rao Hospital. Another information was also received at about 1:42 A.M. regarding the murder of the caller’s son. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No.5A (Ex.PW-13/B) and was assigned to Inspector Rajinder Khatri. He along with Ct. Mandeep went to Hindu Rao Hospital where he met ASI Krishan Chand who handed over the MLC of the deceased and the eyewitness to him. He recorded the statement of the eye-witness Deepak who stated that he worked as a guard at Vidhyanjali Play School CC Colony Delhi. On 4th May 2016 at around 9:30 P.M he had gone with his friend Manish to Phool Wala Park, Mahavir Vatika, SBI Colony, Delhi. On reaching there they saw Rahul S/o Sh. Pappu, Ajay, Rahul S/o Rakesh, Chandan and Arjun sitting in the park. Arjun was in an intoxicated state. Rahul S/o Pappu, Ajay, Rahul S/o Rakesh and Chandan were sitting in the park and were smoking ganja so Manish and he also started smoking ganja with them. At around 9:45 P.M., Rahul S/o Sodan (Appellant herein) who was brother in law of Arjun also came to the park to smoke ganja. Rahul S/o Sodan, started snatching the pudiya of Ganja from Rahul S/o Rakesh so Arjun told him not to snatch the pudiya of Ganja from Rahul S/o Rakesh. On this pretext Arjun and Rahul S/o Sodan started abusing each other and Arjun gave a kick blow to his brother in law Rahul S/o Sodan and then both of them started hitting each other. When they tried to intervene and stop the fight Rahul S/o Sodan got angry and said “Tum sab door ho jayo main aaj isse jaan se maarkar hi dum lunga, Jo isse pehle bhi mere saath jhagda karta rehta hai, aaj kuch bhi ho jaaye main isse nahi chodunga.” While saying this he started kicking and punching Arjun recklessly. In a short while Arjun became unconscious and Rahul S/o Sodan after seeing him unconscious ran away from the place of incident. During this time Arjun’s wife Baby heard the commotion and she came inside the park and saw Arjun in an unconscious state. Baby, Manish and Deepak picked up Arjun from the park and took him to Hindu Rao Hospital in a TSR where he was admitted. The doctor checked Arjun and told them that Arjun had died. Rahul S/o Sodan got into a fight with Arjun with the intention of killing him. On the basis of the aforesaid statement (Ex.PW-2/A), FIR No. 274/2016 (Ex.PW-13/C) was registered for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC at PS Model Town
5. Thereafter, Insp. Rajender Khatri along with ASI Krishan and the complainant Deepak reached at the place of incident a
