SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Del) 982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. Gauba, J.
Subheg Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2002
Decided On : 05-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Anil Hooda, Adv., Ajay Sharma, Adv., Raghuvinder Verma, Adv.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the intention to cause specific injuries in determining the nature of the offence committed.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code - Trial - Section 173, Indian Penal Code - Sections 308, 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were sent for trial based on a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and were held guilty for an offence punishable under sections 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The incident involved an assault on three individuals, resulting in injuries and the subsequent death of one of the victims.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence did not establish the intention to cause injuries likely to result in death, and modified the convictions to offences under different sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court also decided to release the appellants on probation of good conduct and ordered compensation for the victims.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of the nature of the offences committed by the appellants, specifically regarding the intention to cause injuries likely to result in death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence did not support the original charge under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC, and instead modified the convictions to offences under section 324 read with section 34 IPC and section 323 read with section 34 IPC.

Final Decision: The appellants were released on probation of good conduct and ordered to compensate the victims for the injuries suffered.

JUDGMENT :

R.K.Gauba, J.

The appellants were sent for trial on the basis of report (charge sheet) dated 11.02.1996 under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted by Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station, Mongol Puri upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.1085/1995 of the said police station. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where they were put on trial on the charge for offence punishable under sections 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), wherein Kartar Singh (PW2), Sukhchain Singh (PW-8) and Balbir Singh (since deceased) are the persons described as victims, the incident having occurred at about 9:20 p.m. on 15.10.1995 in front of House No.I-430, Mongol Puri, Delhi.

2. Upon conclusion of the trial, the appellants were held guilty, as charged, by judgment dated 27.04.2002 (in Sessions Case No.56/1997) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each by order dated 29.04.2002, the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. having been accorded.

3. The appellants challenged the above-mentioned judgment and order on sentence by the present appeal in 2002. The appeal was admitted and put in the list of 'Regulars'. Its turn for adjudication has come up after seventeen years.

4. The FIRs had been registered on the basis of statement (Ex.PW2/A) made by Kartar Singh (PW2), the other victims of the offence viz. Sukhchain Singh (PW8) and Balbir Singh (since deceased) being his sons. It was alleged in the FIR that when PW2 was standing outside the house, appellant Subheg Singh (A1) and his cousin, appellant Baldev Singh (A2), had come out, the former wielding a gandasi (chopper), the latter (A2) holding a wooden stick. Both the appellants allegedly started beating up the complainant. Upon hearing his cries for help, his sons came out and tried to intervene. It is alleged that A1 caused injuries with gandasi on the person of PW8 and Balbir Singh (deceased) while A2 used wooden stick to hit at PW2, all of them having suffered injuries in the process.

5. The charge sheet which was submitted and the evidence that was adduced show that PW2 was shifted immediately to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital (DDU Hospital) where he was medically examined, the medico-legal certificate (MLC) in this respect having been proved on record (as Ex.PW10/A). The MLC of PW2 shows that he had suffered a superficial contused lacerated wound (CLW) on the forehead besides suffering bruises and abrasion on the back. The other victims, PW8 and Balbir Singh, were instead taken to the police station from where they were referred to the same hospital and examined separately, the injuries suffered by PW8 being two CLWs on the scalp and forehead, they found to be "simple caused by blunt weapon", the injuries of Balbir Singh including "a bruise over the neck and a vertical incised wound on the forehead", the nature, however, being simple caused by sharp weapon. All the three victims were discharged from the hospital on the same day.

6. Balbir Singh suffered certain complications seven days later on 22.10.1995. He was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital at about 9:35 p.m. with history of bleeding and vomiting, and declared dead at 9:40 p.m. in the said hospital, the death at the time suspected to be on account of "cardio respiratory collapse", the MLC in this respect being Ex.PW7/A.

7. Since the death of Balbir Singh had occurred within a week of the above-mentioned assault, upon information being received, the police took note and conducted inquiry into the death, also taking the dead body for post-mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body of Balbir Singh was conducted on 23.10.1995 by Dr. L.K. Baruah (PW1) in the Civil Hospital, Delhi. PW1, by his autopsy report Ex.(PW1/A), which he affirmed at the trial, concluded that the death had occurred due to pulmonary tuberculosis disease suffered by Balbir Singh, it having led to respiratory arrest. There is no evide















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top