The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from Sarabjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Girish Singh v. State of Uttaranchal to determine the appellant's culpability and the appropriate legal provision for conviction.

Headnote:
Criminal Law - Conviction - Section 302 IPC - Section 304 Part II IPC - [Section 302 IPC, Section 304 Part II IPC] - The court analyzed the CCTV footage and concluded that the appellant deliberately tipped over the deceased from the second floor, leading to his death. The court considered the presence of a plastic sheet covering the first floor and inferred that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without the intention to cause death. The court applied legal principles from Sarabjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Girish Singh v. State of Uttaranchal to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC for tipping over the deceased from the second floor, leading to his death. The court analyzed the CCTV footage, witness testimonies, and post mortem report to establish the sequence of events and the appellant's culpability.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant deliberately tipped over the deceased, leading to his death. The court concluded that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without the intention to cause death, and therefore convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the appellant's intent and the nature of the act that led to the deceased's death. The court considered the presence of a plastic sheet covering the first floor and the appellant's awareness of it in determining the appropriate legal provision for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from Sarabjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Girish Singh v. State of Uttaranchal to determine the appellant's culpability and the appropriate legal provision for conviction. The court considered the presence of a plastic sheet covering the first floor and inferred that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without the intention to cause death.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and instead, he was convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The court directed the appellant's release, considering the period of incarceration already served.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J.

1. This appeal assails the judgment dated 18th September, 2017 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and order on sentence dated 27th September, 2017 sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine.

The Incident:

2. As per the case of the prosecution an information was received on 17th July, 2012 that a person had fallen from the roof in Karkardooma Courts, Mediation Complex. When the police team arrived at the place of occurrence, a wall fan was found lying in broken condition and the roof of the Mediation Centre made up of plastic at the first floor was found damaged. The injured had already been taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. Upon the police checking the CCTV footage of second floor B Block, it was observed that the deceased was sitting on the parapet and some boys were found standing with the deceased and talking with each other and at about 10:13 a.m. one of the boys standing next to the deceased seemingly pushed him down. The crime team was called, Rukka was prepared and FIR No.256/2012 was registered. Pursuant to the investigation by the Investigating Officer (IO) Inspector Raj Kumar SHO PS Farsh Bazar, the deceased Nazim was identified by his brother who also identified the appellant as the person who had pushed the deceased. On 18th July, 2012 with the help of the brother of the deceased and upon a search by the police, the appellant was arrested who on interrogation confessed his guilt. Later, he pointed out the place of occurrence and upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no evidence was led by the defence.

Submissions by the Appellant:

3. The appellant contended through the appeal and arguments on his behalf by the learned counsel that no statement of eye witness had been recorded despite many persons who were seen on the CCTV footage and that the FIR lodged was also under Section 34 IPC besides Section 302 IPC. The appellant further contended that the prosecution did not place on record any CCTV footage of the ground and the first floor of the court premises which would have made it clear as to how the deceased fell through the plastic sheet. Besides no blood was found at the site and the photographs by the police would show that the plastic sheet was loosely fixed to the iron frame as a cover to the first floor and had come undone. The alleged act of the appellant in pushing the deceased could not have been said to have been done with intent to commit murder since knowing there was a plastic sheet covering the ground floor, there was no intention to cause an injury which would result in death. The death of the deceased was caused due to shock as a result of the injury to the head produced by the blunt force impact. Accordingly, the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., (1984) 1 SCC 673 where in an alleged case of lifting a deceased infant and throwing him on the ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that every death cannot be seen as murder and there is a well recognized line between culpable homicide amounting to murder and that not amounting to murder which has to be respected. The appellant, therefore, contended that his case at the worst falls under Section 304 (Part 2) of the IPC, similar to the facts of the case in Girish Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 15 SCC 330 where it was a push down the hill. It was stated that the appellant had already served more than ten years in imprisonment in Mandoli Prison and therefore ought to be released.

Submissions by the Prosecution:

4. The learned Additional Public