Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
State – Appellant
Versus
Ajay @ Badakka & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.L.P. 116 of 2021
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Section 307/34 IPC - Acquittal under Section 307 IPC, Conviction under Section 325 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307, Section 325 - The court acquitted the accused under Section 307 IPC due to lack of proof of intention to cause culpable homicide, but convicted them under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous injuries. The court considered the testimony of witnesses, the nature of injuries, and the lack of motive to establish the accused's guilt. The accused were sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to deposit a fine of Rs.500 each.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused were charged with offences under Sections 307/34 of the IPC for causing grievous injuries to the victim. The trial court acquitted the accused under Section 307 IPC but convicted them under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's intention to cause culpable homicide under Section 307 IPC, but established their guilt for causing grievous injuries under Section 325 IPC. The court considered the testimony of witnesses, the nature of injuries, and the lack of motive. The accused were sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to deposit a fine of Rs.500 each.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had the intention to cause culpable homicide under Section 307 IPC and whether they were guilty of causing grievous injuries under Section 325 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's intention to cause culpable homicide under Section 307 IPC, but proved their guilt for causing grievous injuries under Section 325 IPC based on the testimony of witnesses, nature of injuries, and lack of motive.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused under Section 307 IPC, convicted them under Section 325 IPC, sentenced them to the period already undergone, and directed them to deposit a fine of Rs.500 each.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present application under Section 378(3) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, has been filed on behalf of the appellant seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24.06.2020 passed by the learned Court of Sessions in FIR No. 224/2017, registered at P.S. Gokalpuri, Delhi, for the offences under Sections 307/34 of the IPC.
2. The brief background of this case, as noted in the impugned judgment dated 24.06.2020 is as under:
"HC Virender posted at GTB Hospital on 09.06.2017 at about 10:00 gave information to Police Station Gokalpuri regarding admission of Rajender (hereinafter referred to as "the injured") in injured condition as the injured received stab injuries by a knife in a quarrel and said information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 20A. DD no. 20A was assigned to SI Ompal Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the investigating officer") who along with Ct. Nitin reached at GTB hospital and collected MLC of the injured who was found not fit for statement. Rukka was prepared. FIR bearing no. 224/17 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") was got registered. The Investigating officer reached at the spot and called District Crime Team which inspected the spot. The investigating officer collected exhibits. Eye witness Kallu joined investigation who stated that he is working as a labourer and on the day of incident at about 9:00 PM, he saw Ajay @ Badakka, Govind @ Genda Lal and Hari Kishan @Kalu (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") were abusing the injured after surrounding him. The accused Ajay @ Badakka asked the accused Hari Kishan @kalu and Govind @ Genda Lal to finish the injured. The accused Hari Kishan @ Kallu caught hold of the injured and the accused Govind @ Genda Lal gave knife blows on the neck and stomach of the injured and thereafter all of them fled away from the spot. The father of the injured namely Deewan was informed who removed the injured to GTB hospital and handed over the blood stained clothes of the injured to the investigating officer. The investigating officer also recorded the statement of the injured. The accused Ajay @ Badakka and Govind @ Gende Lal were arrested on 11.06.2017 at the instance of father of injured. The accused Govind @ Gende Lal got recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife. The accused Hari Kishan @ Kalu was arrested on 15.06.2017 at the instance of father of the injured. ASI Karan Singh was assigned further investigation. The accused after completion of the investigation were charge sheeted for offences punishable under sections 307/34 IPC."
3. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge punishable under Section 307/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons and they were put on trial. Statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein, they denied the charges framed against them and pleaded innocence.
4. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. PW1- Kallu is the eye witness, PW2 is the injured, PW-3 is the father of the injured and PW6 is Dr. Ranapratap Singh, who proved the MLC. In addition, five official witnesses were also examined by the prosecution, including the Investigating Officer (PW-4) of this case.
5. Relying upon the testimony of witnesses examined and considering the arguments by both the sides, the learned trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons for the offences under Section 307/IPC beyond reasonable doubt. However, for the offence under Section 325 IPC, accused were held guilty and sentenced. The learned Trial court vide Order on Sentence dated 29.06.2020 observed and held as under:
"1.The counsel for the convict Ajay @ Badakka stated that he remained in JC with effect from 11.06.2017 to 04.02.2019. The convict is only earning member in the family and is married. The convict has to maintain his old aged parents. The counsel for the convict Hari Kishan @ Kallu stated
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove intention to cause culpable homicide under Section 307 IPC and the standard of proof for establishing guilt under Section ....
The central legal point established is the reliance on consistent and credible testimony, medical opinion, and socio-economic factors in determining the guilt and sentencing of the appellants.
Conviction under Section 307 IPC affirmed based on corroborated eyewitness testimony and evidence suggesting intent to kill, regardless of fatal injury. The appeal was dismissed.
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
The prosecution failed to prove grievous injuries beyond reasonable doubt, leading to a modified conviction under Section 324 IPC with increased fines.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove mens rea for the offence under Section 307 IPC and the interpretation of the nature of the injury in determining the ap....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of different sections of IPC, specifically Section 307, Section 326, and Section 448, in determining the appella....
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
