IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. 1126 of 2018
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 304, 300 - Murder Offence – Appeal against Conviction - Lock of door was broken - Dead body of sardar was found lying – Held, No motive was brought on record by prosecution and thus it can be concluded that there was no ‘intention’ on part of appellant to murder his brother/ deceased, and at best, only knowledge that injury inflicted was likely to cause death can be attributed on appellant - It would appear that accused inflicted an injury which he knew to be likely to cause death and case would accordingly fall under Section 304 Part II, Penal Code, 1860 - Consequently, conviction of appellant is modified to one from offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 IPC - Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of learned Trial Court dated 17th August, 2018 whereby the appellant was convicted for murder of his brother Rajender Singh (“deceased”) by stabbing him with a knife; and the order on sentence dated 28th August, 2018, whereby the appellant was directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof, simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
2. In nutshell, brief facts of the case are that on 28th August, 2013, Sanjay Kumar (PW-15) made a PCR call at number 100 and informed that the tenant of a room at the house No. F-178, Laxmi Park, Nihal Vihar had went away after locking the room and that blood was coming out from the said room. The said information was recorded vide DD No.27A which was marked to SI Sugriv (PW-23). SI Sugriv alongwith Ct. Jai Kishore reached the spot and found foul smell emanating from the room as also blood coming out from underneath the door of the said room. Thereafter, the lock of the door was broken with a brick. Inside the room, one bed was found lying and clothes were found lying on the side. On removing the clothes, dead body of one sardar was found lying. The crime team was called to the spot and in the meanwhile, Insp./IO Pramendra Singh (PW-28) also reached the spot. The dead body was sent to the mortuary at SGM Hospital at Mangolpuri. Rukka (Ex. PW-23/A) was prepared pursuant to which, FIR No.294/2013, dated 23rd August, 2013, under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Nihal Vihar, West (Ex. PW-5/A) was registered. On 24th August, 2013, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination, and was identified as Rajender Singh @ Vicky by the mother Smt. Kartar Kaur (PW-10) and one Narender Kumar (PW-8). After postmortem examination, the body was handed over to the mother Smt. Kartar Kaur (PW-10).
3. Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-16) alongwith Dr. Manish Wadhwan conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and tendered his report Ex. PW-16/A and opined :
Time since death: Approx. 3 days.
Opinion: The cause of death is hemorrhagic shock due to hard injury, all injuries are ante-mortem in nature. Injury 1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries are caused by sharp, single edged weapon.
4. On the basis of a secret information, the appellant was apprehended at Ganda Nala, Nihal Vihar and pursuant to interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-8/A and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-18/D) was recorded and recoveries were effected. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. To establish its case, prosecution examined 28 witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the alleged weapon of offence was discovered from the roof of the toilet at the first floor of H. No. F-178, which was easily accessible to many people including Sanjay Kumar (PW-15) as also the other inhabitants of the said house. The alleged incident took place on 21st August, 2013 and the said knife was recovered on 25th August, 2013, during which period the place of recovery of the knife i.e. the toilet was accessible to multiple persons and hence, it cannot be said that the knife was recovered from a place exclusively within the knowledge and possession of the appellant. R
Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab
Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab
Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab
The chain of circumstances, last seen theory, and recovery of the weapon and blood evidence can establish guilt in a murder case even in the absence of a clear motive.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof is lighter, and the accused must provide a plausible explanation for the crime. Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the absence o....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : A. S. Rathore For the Respondent : Mukesh Kumawat
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the sufficiency of witness credibility and evidence of intent for the act despite noted inconsistencies.
Direct evidence from eyewitnesses substantiated by medical testimony is sufficient for conviction; absence of motive does not negate evidence.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.