Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ.
Madan Gopal Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl A No. 846 of 2018; Crl.M. (Bail) No. 7846 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2021
MURDER - Criminal Law - IPC 302, IPC 324 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant Madan Gopal Yadav under sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzes the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, focusing on the testimony of the injured eye witness, the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime, and the nature of the injuries inflicted. The court concludes that the appellant is guilty of committing murder and causing knife injuries to the witness. The appeal is dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order on sentence are upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the appellant Madan Gopal Yadav for the murder of Dinesh and causing knife injuries to Shrawan. The incident took place at a residence in Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, where the appellant, the deceased, and the injured witness had gathered for a party. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and the postmortem report, while the defense argued lack of motive and attempted to discredit the injured witness's testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the injured witness's testimony to be unflinching, reliable, and wholly trustworthy. The court concluded that the appellant's actions were cruel and unusual, leading to the inevitable conclusion that the case falls under Section 302 of the IPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order on sentence were upheld.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime, the credibility of the injured witness's testimony, the nature of the injuries inflicted, and the applicability of the legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles set out in the Indian Penal Code, focusing on the intention to cause bodily injury and the likelihood of causing death in the ordinary course of nature. The court emphasized the trustworthiness of the injured witness's testimony and the severity of the injuries inflicted by the appellant.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Dinesh and causing knife injuries to Shrawan. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order on sentence were upheld.
The appeal filed by the appellant Madan Gopal Yadav against his conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and the sentences imposed (rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 IPC, with default simple imprisonment for two months; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 324 IPC, with default simple imprisonment for 15 days) is dismissed. (!) [11000708790039] The impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2018 and order on sentence dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, are upheld. (!) [11000708790039] The court found the appellant guilty of murdering Dinesh by inflicting 12 stab injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and of causing knife injuries to injured eyewitness PW-14 Shrawan (Sharwan) when he intervened.[11000708790038][11000708790039] The testimony of PW-14 was held to be unflinching, reliable, wholly trustworthy, and corroborated by medical evidence, with the appellant's presence at the scene undisputed.[11000708790008][11000708790010][11000708790019][11000708790024] The case falls squarely under Section 300 "thirdly" IPC (murder), given the intention to cause bodily injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and not under Section 304 IPC.[11000708790025][11000708790037][11000708790038] All pending applications stand disposed of, and trial court records are to be returned with a certified copy of this judgment.[11000708790039]
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - By this Judgment, we shall dispose of the present appeal which has been filed against the Judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2018 and order on sentence dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide which appellant Madan Gopal Yadav has been convicted U/s 302/324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as fine for the offence U/s 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s 324 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 15 days.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on receiving DD No.6-B dated 07.06.2012, SI Mukesh Kumar Meena alongwith Ct. Surender reached at the spot i.e. Kothi No. A-1/38, SJ Enclave, where he met Varun Lamba. Varun Lamba stated that his servant Dinesh and one more person are lying outside the servant quarter and their bodies are blood stained and they are unconscious. In the meanwhile, PCR and CAT ambulance also reached there. Dinesh Kumar was found dead and injured Shrawan was removed to the hospital. Blood stains were found till second floor and two mobile phones were also lying there. Blood stained knife was also recovered which was lying near the legs of injured. On the second floor of the house, one person Gopal (the present appellant) was present and was in panic condition. He was interrogated. On the right hand and on his face, one stab wound was noticed. Thereafter ruqqa was prepared and FIR of this case was registered and investigation went underway.
3. After the completion of the investigation, challan was filed before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
4. Vide order dated 20.09.2012, charges U/s 302/307 IPC were framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the appellant, Ld. APP for the state and have also gone through the records of this case.
6. It is urged by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive for the crime. It is further submitted that the appellant and the deceased had cordial relations for the last 5 to 6 years, so there was no occasion for the appellant to kill Dinesh. It is further urged that Shrawan (injured) had come to kill Dinesh as they both were homosexual and dispute arose between them. It is further urged by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that it was Shrawan (PW 14) who had committed the murder of Dinesh, inflicted injury upon the appellant and upon himself and the appellant has no role in giving any injury to deceased Dinesh or to PW-14 Shrawan. It is further argued that it is the appellant who informed PW 2 about the incident and did not try to flee away. It is further argued that knife, which according to the prosecution was used in the offence and found at the spot, neither had finger prints nor blood group of either of the deceased or the appellant. It is further argued that the IO has neither seized the CDR of the injured, nor of the accused/appellant so as to co-relate the call details of injured Shrawan, deceased Dinesh and the appellant. It is further argued that PW 1 has not supported the case of the prosecution over the fight between the appellant, injured and deceased. It is further argued that PW 14 is not a reliable witness as he is the perpetrator of the crime and has falsely implicated the appellant and conviction cannot be based on his sole testimony. Ld. counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW 14 has even failed to give the measurement of the knife which shows that he is not telling the truth. It is further argued that there are insertions and improvements in
AI
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that a single fatal blow with a weapon can constitute murder if intended to cause serious injury, rejecting claims of provocation.
If intention of accused was limited to infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and did not extend to intention of causing death, offence would be murder.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 299 and 300 of IPC to determine the appellant's intention and knowledge regarding the likely consequence of the inflicte....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
