Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
Mukesh Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
State - Respondent
Crl. A. 448 of 2018
Decided On : 08-07-2022
For the Appellant :Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Aditeya Bali, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State with Insp. Ashok PS Rohini South.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to modify the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Headnote:
Murder - Section 302 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a person with whom he was residing. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the appellant hitting the deceased with kicks and fists. The deceased was found with his hands tied and bleeding from his nose. The appellant was the only person present with the deceased at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of causing injuries to the deceased, leading to his death. The court also considered the delay in registering the F.I.R. and recording witness statements, but deemed it non-fatal to the prosecution case. The court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, considering the circumstances of the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's involvement in the death of the deceased, the delay in registering the F.I.R. and recording witness statements, and the appropriate section of the IPC under which the appellant should be convicted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in registering the F.I.R. and recording witness statements did not discredit the testimony of the witnesses. The court also applied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to modify the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was modified to an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
Mini Pushkarna, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.01.2018 and order on sentence dated 06.02.2018 passed by learned ASJ-04 (North West District), Rohini Courts in SC No. 52312/2016, arising out of F.I.R. No. 17/2013 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station South Rohini. The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant.
2. The prosecution case is that upon call being received by the Police Control Room about quarrel in the house of Krishan Pal near Tula Ram School in which one person had sustained injuries, S.I. Amit from Police Station Mangolpuri reached the spot of incident, i.e., House No. 29/1, Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi. On his reaching the spot, it transpired that the injured had been taken to hospital in PCR van and that the said area fell within the jurisdiction of P.S. South Rohini. S.I. Amit therefore informed the said police station about the incident and the matter was assigned to S.I. Manoj for taking appropriate action. Almost immediately thereafter, a call was received at police station South Rohini that the injured was declared dead by the doctors. The said information was passed on to S.I. Manoj telephonically.
3. During preliminary inquiry at the spot, S.I. Manoj gathered that the deceased and the appellant herein were living together in a room in the house in question. They quarrelled with each other in the night, resultantly, bleeding started from the nose of the deceased. The appellant informed that he was cooking food at that time when deceased fell down. The appellant picked up the deceased, but he again fell down. By observing that the situation was serious and required further inquiry, S.I. Manoj recorded D.D. at Police Station South Rohini on 14.01.2013 at 1:30 PM. In the meanwhile he requested for preservation of dead body in mortuary and locked the tenanted room of the deceased and kept its keys.
4. Relatives of the deceased came to police station on 17.01.2013, on which further proceedings were assigned to S.I. Bal Kishan due to non availability of S.I. Manoj. He got the post-mortem conducted and delivered the body to the relatives of the deceased. As the post-mortem report indicated it to be a case of murder, S.I. Bal Kishan went to the spot and recorded the statement of complainant/landlady, Smt. Usha Dagar (PW-4), who was residing on second floor of the same house.
5. Smt. Usha stated that the deceased was living as tenant in one room on first floor of her property since last two and a half years and used to work as labourer. Although he was in the habit of taking liquor, yet he had never created any scene. The appellant had started residing with the deceased in his tenanted room from 16.12.2012. On being asked about him, deceased had informed that the appellant was a mason hailing from his village and will leave his home within a month after receiving salary. After returning from work in the evening both of them used to consume liquor before going to sleep. In the evening of 13.01.2013, deceased and the appellant had consumed liquor. Manoj Ram, another tenant on first floor of the same house had also joined them. When he was returning, appellant had asked him to stay over for more liquor and that they will gamble thereafter. Noise of something falling down in the room of the deceased was heard by her and other occupants of the house at about 9:00 PM, where upon she came down stairs from second floor where she resided, to first floor where room of the deceased was located. The door of their room was closed from inside. On peeping through the holes of the door, she saw the deceased lying on the floor with his face down and appellant hitting him with kicks and fists. On the door being knock
