Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Bhuwan Yadav @ Bhanu – Appellant
Versus
State GNCT of Delhi – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 831 of 2022
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Robbery - Criminal Procedure - IPC 394/302/411/34 - The court discussed the legal provisions of culpable homicide and murder under IPC Sections 299, 300, and 304, and the interpretation of the knowledge and intention of the accused in causing death. The court set aside the charge under Section 302 IPC and framed a charge under Section 304 Part II IPC against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with robbing a mobile phone from a victim, resulting in her falling off a vehicle and sustaining fatal injuries. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 411/394/34 and, in the alternative, under Sections 302 IPC. The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order, arguing that there was no intention to cause death and that the offense fell under Section 304 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge under Section 302 IPC was not justified as there was no evidence of the petitioner's intention to cause death. It set aside the charge under Section 302 IPC and framed a charge under Section 304 Part II IPC against the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charge under Section 302 IPC was appropriate given the lack of evidence of the petitioner's intention to cause death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal provisions of culpable homicide and murder under IPC Sections 299, 300, and 304 to determine the appropriate charge against the petitioner based on the knowledge and intention of the accused in causing death.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the charge under Section 302 IPC, and framed a charge under Section 304 Part II IPC against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in FIR bearing no. 190/2022, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), whereby charges have been framed against petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 394/302/411/34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.2022, the complainant, i.e., Daya Ram, was driving his battery rickshaw in which a lady passenger namely Smt. Poonam i.e. the victim/deceased, was sitting and talking on her phone. As soon as the complainant reached Main Gate 56, Bigah Park, two bike riders wearing helmets passed by, and one of the riders i.e. petitioner herein snatched the phone of the victim who was sitting in a battery rickshaw. In the process of grabbing the phone, the victim fell on the road and sustained injuries. Meanwhile, one person arrived at the spot, and with his assistance, the complainant was able to get the victim admitted to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital. On 07.03.2022, secret information was received that the co-accused Sonu@Ravi@Takla would be present at a premises in Ibrahim Pur, Delhi, and the SHO concerned after forming a raiding team, apprehended and arrested Sonu@Ravi@Takla. The co-accused on interrogation confessed that on 28.02.2022, when the deceased lady was going in an e-rickshaw on Inderlok to Wazirpur route, he and co-accused, i.e. Kamal@Kunal had snatched her mobile phone, and she had fallen on the road. They had taken the phone, which had certain documents of the victim inside the cover of the phone. After that, co-accused Sonu@Ravi@Takla led the police team to a vacant house where the police recovered one voter ID card and national food security card, which were of the victim. Thereafter, on 12.03.2022, the petitioner i.e. Bhuwan Yadav@Bhanu and co-accused Rajan were taken to the police station wherein the petitioner produced a Redmi Mobile Phone, which matched the description of the robbed phone. Both the petitioner and co-accused Rajan, were arrested by the police. Subsequently, due to critical condition, the victim was further referred to LNJP Hospital, and on 12.03.2022, she succumbed to her injuries.
3. The police, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet under Sections 394/302/411/34 IPC, whereupon cognizance was taken against the petitioner, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.10.2022 framed the charges against the accused persons, including the petitioner, the relevant portion of which is as under:
"4. On examination of the charge sheet, particularly, statement of the complainant, namely, Daya Ram and MLC as well as post-mortem report of the deceased, namely, Smt. Poonam and attendant facts and circumstances of the case, there is primo facie material that on 28.02.2022 at about 05.20 p.m., the accused, namely, Bhuwan Yadav @ Bhanu and Rajan robbed mobile phone of the deceased, namely, Smt. Poonam and when she resisted, the accused, namely, Bhuwan Yadav @ Bhanu pulled her while she was traveling in an e-rickshaw and consequently, she fell on hard surface of the road and suffered cerebral damage which proved fatal and she expired, during treatment, on 11.03.2022 at 05.58 p.m. in Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi. The act committed by the accused persons was imminently dangerous. If a person is pulling other person in order to rob mobile phone while the said person is moving in a vehicle on city road having hard surface, requisite knowledge can be imputed to him.
****
6. As regards sharing of common intention, there is sufficient material that the accused, namely, Rajan was driving the motor-cycle and
The trial court upheld the framing of murder charges without necessitating detailed reasoning, confirming that a prima facie case existed based on evidence presented.
To establish a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of instigation or abetment, which can be inferred from the accused's actions that create circumstances leading the victim to commit....
The intention or knowledge of an accused under Section 308 IPC has to be ascertained only prima facie at the stage of charge, based on the injury caused to the victim.
Sufficient prima facie evidence, including intent tied to enmity, justifies charge framing under IPC Section 304(2) in a case involving reckless driving leading to death.
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
