IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, POONAM A. BAMBA, JJ.
Narej Sheikh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 256 of 2019
Decided On : 24-04-2023
Conviction Modified - Offence of Section 302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ in short), in Sessions Case No. 125/16, in case FIR no. 222/2016, Police Station Seelampur. The appellant was living in a live-in relationship with the deceased's mother and her two children. On the day of the incident, the appellant returned home with meat and asked the deceased's brother to bring oil for cooking. When the brother returned, he saw the appellant beating the deceased with a belan and hitting her against the ground. The deceased was taken to the hospital and declared brought dead.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the deceased's brother to be consistent and trustworthy, and it was corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence. The court concluded that the appellant had intentionally caused injuries to the deceased, leading to her death. However, the court found no premeditation on the part of the appellant and modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part 1 of Section 304 IPC, reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had intentionally caused fatal injuries to the deceased, and if so, whether the offence fell under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 Part I & Part II IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, which requires the presence of an intentional injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court found that the appellant had intentionally caused injuries to the deceased, but there was no premeditation. Therefore, the offence fell under Part 1 of Section 304 IPC.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part 1 of Section 304 IPC, reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years.
JUDGMENT :
Poonam A. Bamba, J.
Vide this appeal, the appellant is assailing the judgment dated 25.10.2018. (‘impugned judgment’ in short) passed by Ld. ASJ-03 (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ in short), in Sessions Case No. 125/16, in case FIR no. 222/2016, Police Station Seelampur; and order on sentence dated 30.10.2018., whereby the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. Criminal justice system was set into motion on receipt of a call at No. 100 on 19.03.2016. at 14 : 02 : 22 from mobile no. 9250228771 as reflected in PCR Form (Ex.PW15/A) about a man having killed one child, who had been overpowered. The said information was passed on to the concerned police station. On which, DD No. 17A (Ex.PW1/A), dated 19.03.2016., PS Seelam Pur, was recorded. Same was assigned to ASI Data Ram/PW-19, who along with Ct. Raj Kumar/PW-6 reached the spot i.e. House No. B-487, Near Buland Masjid, Shashtri Park, Delhi, where HC Vidya Dhar/PW-11 was already present. On reaching the spot, PW-19 found a crowd in front of the said house and one man (whose name was later revealed as Narej Sheikh, the appellant/accused), was being beaten up by public persons, who was saved by PW-19 with the help of one public person Zarinuddin @ Zarinu (PW-7).
3. As the injured had already been removed to hospital, PW-19/ASI Data Ram along with PW-6/Ct. Raj Kumar went to Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital (‘Jag Pravesh Hospital’ in short) and collected the MLC Ex.PW6/1, of the injured Suraiya, aged about 2½ hears, whereby she was declared brought dead. PW-19 called crime team, which inspected the body and the photographer took photographs Ex.PW4/A-1 to Ex.PW4/A-4 of the dead body in hospital. Thereafter, the dead body was shifted to mortuary of GTB Hospital for the purpose of post-mortem examination. Thereafter, PW-19 along with Rahul (PW-27) brother of the deceased and crime team officials reached the house of the appellant/place of incident, where some meat was kept on the floor of the room besides one angocha (cloth piece), belan etc. On pointing out of Rahul/PW-27, photographer of the crime team had taken photographs of the house of the accused/place of incident Ex.PW4/A-5, Ex.PW4/A-6, Ex.PW4/A-8, Ex.PW4/A-9, Ex.PW4/A-11, Ex.PW4/A-13, Ex.PW4/A-15 & Ex.PW4/A-16. At that time mother of the deceased Smt. Firdosa (PW-28) also came. Statement (Ex.PW19/A) of brother of the deceased Rahul (PW-27)/eye witness was recorded, whereby he stated that he along with his sister Suraiya (deceased), mother Firdosa and step-father/appellant was living in a jhuggi at Shashtri Park. His mother worked as house-maid and used to leave home at about 08 : 00 a.m. in the morning and would return by 05 : 00 p.m. His step-father, the appellant, is a rickshaw puller. On that fateful day i.e., 19.03.2016. as usual his mother Firdosa (PW-28) left for work at 08 : 00 a.m. The appellant also left for work but returned around 11 : 00 a.m. and asked him to bring cooking oil as he wanted to cook meat. His sister Suraiya (deceased) insisted to accompany him, but the appellant did not allow her, on which she started crying. When he returned after purchasing oil, he saw that the appellant was beating Suraiya (deceased) with fist and kick blows and had held her from neck and beat her up by throwing her. His sister (deceased) became unconscious. His father asked him to take her out and he came out with her in the gali, where he met one lady and requested her to save his sister. That lady tried to put some water in his sister's mouth, but she did not drink. In the meanwhile, another lady came there who took him and his sister to hospital. Doctor on examining Suraiya/his sister, declared her brought dead.
4. On above statement of Rahul/PW-27, Rukka Ex.PW2/A was prepared and was sent to the
The consistent testimony of witnesses and medical evidence can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even in the absence of a proven motive.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was adjusted to culpable homicide under Section 304 due to ambiguities in witness accounts and lack of intent, establishing a precedent for interpreting ....
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder hinges on the offender's intention, with insufficient evidence of intent leading to a reduced sentence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on ocular evidence, admission of presence, and post-mortem report to establish the appellant's involvement in the assault, leading to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credible and consistent testimony in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as well as the application of legal provisions a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention in....
As the attack is an outcome of the said incident, which took place immediately prior to the incident, we feel that it is a fit case where the nature of offence has to be scaled down from Section 302 ....
The testimony of eyewitnesses, especially injured witnesses, and the nature of injuries carry great weight in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC can be based on a single eyewitness's credible testimony, provided it is substantiated by medical evidence, reflecting intentional infliction of fatal injuries.
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.