Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, C. HARI SHANKAR, JJ.
Vishvajeet Dass@Vishvanath Das @Vishwa - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A. 1315 of 2019
Decided On : 18-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.B. Dandapani (DHCLSC), Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with Inspector Om Prakash and Inspector M.S. Kamal
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the circumstances, including intoxication and the nature of the offence, in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Section 302 - [302 IPC] - The court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant appealed for a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, arguing that the offence was committed in the heat of passion and without pre-meditation. The court, considering the circumstances, converted the conviction to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and reduced the sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of the deceased by hitting him with a brick. The appellant appealed for a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, citing the sudden fight and the influence of alcohol as mitigating factors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offence was committed in a state of egregious intoxication and in the heat of passion, leading to the conversion of the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The court also reduced the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Issues: Conviction under Section 302 IPC, appeal for conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, and the quantum of sentence imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the state of intoxication and the nature of the attack, in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The court converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and reduced the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine for a further period of six months.
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, Vishvajeet Dass alias Vishvanath Das alias Vishwa, the appellant has been produced in custody.
2. The appellant stands convicted for the commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) by the Trial Court by way of its judgment dated 20.07.2019; which further by way of its order on sentence dated 22.07.2019 has consequently directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. As per the case of the prosecution Abhishek Jha (PW-9) recorded the subject complaint that, on 04.07.2012 at about 09:15 PM, while he was returning to his house from the market behind Joshi Colony Church, near Rajdhani Store, he saw the accused giving brick blows on the head and back of the deceased, who was lying on the ground with blood oozing out from his head.
4. Abhishek Jha (PW-9) was consistent in his testimony throughout including the deposition that, although he tried to save the deceased and catch hold of the appellant, the latter ran away and disappeared.
5. Om Pal (PW-4), who is the other eye-witness to the incident, deposed that, he was working as a Technician with M/s. D.G. Cables and was residing at Madhu Vihar at the relevant time. PW-4 further deposed that the cables of his company were inter alia installed at Batla Apartments and, therefore, he used to visit the said location regularly for checking the connections. PW-4 also deposed that on 04.07.2012, when he was taking tea, at the tea shop of Neelu, on the footpath in front of Batla Apartments, he witnessed the appellant quarrelling with the deceased. PW-4 cogently deposed that he knew both the appellant and the deceased, since they also used to visit the said tea shop of Neelu. It was further deposed by PW-4 that, after taking tea as he left the shop, he heard some loud noises from behind him, and on turning back, saw the appellant hitting a brick on the head of the deceased, who had fallen down. It was categorically deposed by PW-4 that the appellant inflicted 2/3 more blows with the brick upon the deceased, and then fled away from the spot, when members of the public started gathering there.
6. The post-mortem conducted by Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh (PW-7) upon the body of the deceased inter alia clearly opined that, out of the eleven injuries found on the body of the deceased; injury No.1, 2 and 3, i.e. (i) multiple abrasions of 13x11 cm over right side of face and temporal region; (ii) lacerated wound of 1x1 cm with surrounding abrasion of 3x3 cm over right side of forehead just above eyebrow medial end; and (iii) abraded bruise 6x6 cm around left temporal region; were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-7 further opined, upon examination of the brick — which was the weapon of offence — that, the possibility of the fatal injuries having been caused upon the deceased with the same (Ex.4) — seized by the police from the spot — cannot be ruled out.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record, the trial court vide the impugned judgment has returned a finding that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Mr. S.B. Dandapani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on instructions from the latter, states that they do not impugn the findings arrived at by the trial court, save and except to the limited extent to urge that, the commission of the offence by the appellant, was upon a sudden fight and occurred in the heat of passion at the spur of the moment, without any pre-meditation and whilst being under the influence of alcohol; and that, therefore, the appellant ought to have been convicted only for the commission of an offence falling within the scope and ambit of t
