Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Ranjeet Raut – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 1393 of 2019
Decided On : 28-02-2023
Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 - Presence of appellant/accused at the spot admitted - Injuries caused by appellant/accused established beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Part 1 of Section 304 IPC - Sentence reduced to period already undergone
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for assaulting the deceased with a danda, resulting in his death. The case was based on the ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who testified to the presence of the appellant at the spot and the assault on the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's presence at the spot was admitted, and the injuries caused by the appellant were established beyond reasonable doubt. The court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part 1 of Section 304 IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's involvement in the assault leading to the deceased's death, based on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. The court also considered the applicability of the 4th Exception to Section 300 IPC in modifying the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, the appellant's admission of presence at the spot, and the post-mortem report to establish the appellant's involvement in the assault. The court applied the 4th Exception to Section 300 IPC to modify the conviction.
Final Decision: The court modified the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part 1 of Section 304 IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Poonam A. Bamba, J. Vide this appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C, the appellant is assailing the judgment dated 01.10.2019 (`impugned judgment' in short) passed by Ld. ASJ-04, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC' in short), in new Sessions Case No. 57390/2016, in FIR no. 236/2014, Police Station K.N.Katju Marg; and order on sentence dated 09.10.2019, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.03.2014 information through Constable Pawan Dagar/PW-10 at PS K.N Katju Marg was received from BSA hospital regarding admission of one Vimal son of Ram Bilas, R/o A-62, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi in injured condition by his friend Rajesh/PW-2, which was recorded vide DD no. 6A/Ex PW 21/A. On receipt of the same, ASI Sanjay Kumar/PW-28 was deputed and reached BSA Hospital and found admitted, injured Vimal Paswan vide MLC No. 3530/14 Ex. PW-8/A. The injured was declared as unfit for statement. The eye witness Gunnu Kumar/PW-1 was found present at the hospital and got recorded his statement to the effect that he is working as JCB machine helper and is living on rent at House No. 62 Shahbad Daulatpur village. On 16.03.2014, injured Vimal Paswan from Azadpur and the appellant/accused Ranjit Raut from Nathupura visited his place to celebrate Holi. When all three of them were consuming liquor, suddenly the appellant/accused told the injured eSaus rq>s xkMh pykuk fl[kk;k Fkk vkSj vc rw eq>ls cM+k mLrkn cu x;k gSA vkSj vc rwus esjs ls ckrphr djuk gh can dj fn;k gS*
on this account they got into scuffle with each other; he/PW-1 separated them and thereafter, came out of the room near the tap to clean utensils. Thereafter, the injured also came out and sat near him. At about 7:30 pm, the appellant/accused also came out holding a danda in his hand and hit the injured from behind two to four times and threatened to kill him as the injured did not listen to him though he had taught him driving. As a result, the injured Vimal Paswan fell unconscious and the appellant/accused ran away. He along with Rajesh/PW-2 took the injured Vimal to BSA hospital in an auto-rickshaw.
2.1. On the basis of PW-1's statement Ex. PW-1/A and MLC Ex. PW-8/A, ASI Sanjay Kumar/PW-28 prepared rukka and handed over the same to constable Pawan Dagar/PW-10 and got the FIR registered at PS K.N Katju Marg. Thereafter, PW-28 proceeded to the spot along with the complainant Gunnu Kumar/PW-1 and prepared rough site plan Ex. PW1/B at his instance. At the spot, he met Rajesh PW-2 who also informed himself to be the witness and his statement was recorded. The accused was searched. Meanwhile, ASI Sanjay Kumar/PW-28 received information of the demise of the injured vide DD No. 25B/Ex. 11/A dated 17.03.2014 PS K.N Katju Marg, which was assigned to Investigation Officer Inspector Mohar Singh/PW-32.
2.2. During investigation, the IO recorded statement of the witnesses, arrested the appellant/accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C, recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW29/A whereby, he admitted his involvement in the incident. Pursuant to his disclosure, the appellant/accused got recovered the weapon of offence i.e., danda Ex. P-1 from A-62, Factory Main Gate, Shahbad Daulatpur, which was seized vide memo Ex.29/D. Clothes of the appellant/accused, which he was wearing at the time of incident were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. 29/B. IO Inspector Mohar Singh/PW-32 got conducted the postmortem of the deceased vide postmortem report no. 194/2014/Ex.PW9/A and received the Exhibits/viscera of the deceased. Clothes of the deceased, blood sample of the deceased in gauze piece and one sample seal were also handed over to the IO, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P
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 court established that a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC requires intent to kill, which was absent in this case, justifying a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.
Point of law: It is true that the injury possible by fall on hard surface but depending on the force. It is true an alcoholic may sustain easily the rupture of blood vessels even at the slightest vio....
The main legal point established is that the evidence of a sole eye-witness can be relied upon if it is convincing and corroborated by other evidence, even if the oral dying declarations are found to....
The court established that a common intention among co-accused can lead to joint liability for murder, even if not all participants inflicted the fatal blow, provided their actions collectively demon....
Point of Law : Amicus Curie has not been able to show that the above parameters have been satisfied, so as to take the prosecution case out of the purview of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court upheld the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt while recognizing the lack of intent to ki....
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
