Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
State - Appellant
Versus
Ram Nath Choudhary & Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Leave Petition No. 3 of 2020
Decided On : 15-01-2020
Neelam Sharma, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 Part II of the IPC and the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304, IPC, based on the absence of premeditation, the act being done in the heat of passion, and the assailants not taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner.
Headnote:
Section 378(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure - IPC - 304(II)/34 - The judgment discusses the application of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304, IPC. The court analyzes the evidence to determine whether the case falls within the ambit of Section 302 or Section 304, IPC. It highlights the importance of medical evidence and testimonies of witnesses in establishing the guilt or innocence of the accused. The court concludes that the case falls within the purview of Section 304 Part II, and upholds the conviction and sentence of the respondents for the said offences.
Fact of the Case:
The accused persons were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304(II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for pushing the deceased off the terrace during a sudden scuffle over money. The medical evidence and testimonies of witnesses were crucial in determining the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case falls within the purview of Section 304 Part II of the IPC, and upheld the conviction and sentence of the respondents for the said offences.
Issues: The main issue was to determine whether the case falls within the ambit of Section 302 or Section 304, IPC, based on the evidence and testimonies presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to determine the applicability of Section 304 Part II of the IPC, emphasizing the absence of premeditation, the act being done in the heat of passion, and the assailants not taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner.
Final Decision: The leave petition filed by the State seeking enhancement of sentence was dismissed, and the court upheld the conviction and sentence of the respondents for the said offences.
JUDGMENT
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J. - By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.''), the State seeks enhancement of sentence pursuant to the judgment dated 23.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, whereby the respondents (accused persons before the Trial Court) were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304(II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'').
2. The brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned Trial Court are reproduced as under:
"Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused persons along with accused Govind (JCL) were arrested by the Police officials of Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi and were challaned to the court for trial of commission of the offences punishable U/s 302/34 IPC. Prosecution story, as unfolded from the perusal of the charge-sheet is that on 28.07.2013 on receipt of DD No.4B, SI Krishan along with Ct. Laxman Pandey reached at BJRM hospital where on MLC no. 63252/13 patient Dharmender Sharma aged 32 years was found admitted and it was mentioned on the MLC that patient was unconscious and not responding to physical stimulation and had been declared brought dead. In the hospital, witness Poonam met who got recorded her statement as: I am residing at tenanted premises i.e. Gali no. 19, D block, Kargil colony, Mukundpur. Yesterday on 27.07.2013, the neighbourer of our room Ram Nath Chaudhary had hosted a party in lieu of birth of a baby girl and that party was going on the roof of our room. In that party, Kundan Kumar and Govind Kumar were taking liquor. In the meantime, they also called my husband and my husband also started taking liquor. During that, a scuffle took place between them and Kundan asked my husband to give Rs.500 back on which my husband asked Kundan that he had brought Drill machine from my husband and has not made payment for that. On this, Kundan at once took out 500 rupees note and gave it to my husband. For some time Kundan remain pacified but later on started abusing my husband. He asked my husband to return back the remaining amount as Rs.500/- could not be the amount of drilling machine otherwise he will teach my husband a lesson and whatever my husband had taken inside in the form of liquor he will take it out by stabbing knife in his stomach, Govind and Ramnath also took the side of Kundan. I was watching all this in the stairs but the when the matter was not sorted, at about 11 pm, I also rushed to the roof and tried to pacify my husband and Kundan. After some time, Kundan again started abusing my husband and stated that today let him (my husband) finish as earlier also he had not paid for the party. Ramnath and Govind took side of Kundan and they all lifted my husband and thrown him in the nearby house. I immediately after shouting ran towards the nearby house. Ramnath also came there and we both after taking TSR of Mohit reached at Jagjivan Ram hospital, where my husband was declared brought dead by the doctor."
3. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and charges for the offences under Section 302/34 of IPC were framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, however, accused Govind was declared as a juvenile and proceedings qua him were initiated before Juvenile Justice Board.
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined twenty witnesses in all. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, wherein they reiterated their innocence and denied all prosecution charges and both accused persons took a plea that deceased had a quarrel with them which was resolved and they returned to their respective houses, however, the deceased remained on the roof in an inebriated condition and slipped and fell down from the roof. No defence evidence was
