Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
State – Appellant
Versus
Rahul – Respondent
Crl.L.P. 698 of 2019 & Crl.M.A. 42535 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2023
Criminal Leave to Appeal - Impugning judgment and order on sentence - Section 378(3) Cr.P.C - FIR 0049/2015 - Sections 308/427/34 IPC - Summary Conviction and Acquittal - Legal Provisions Interpretation
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/State filed a criminal leave to appeal under section 378(3) Cr.P.C to challenge the judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court convicting the respondent for offences under sections 427/34 IPC and 324/34 IPC, but acquitting him for the offence under section 308 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence did not prove that the injury inflicted on the victim was likely to cause his death not amounting to murder, and therefore, the respondent should have been convicted for a lesser offence under section 323 IPC instead of section 324 IPC.
Issues: The issues involved were whether the injury inflicted on the victim fell within the ambit of section 308 IPC, and whether the respondent had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on previous cases to establish that the nature of the injury and the intention or knowledge of the accused are crucial in determining the appropriate offence under the IPC.
Final Decision: The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present criminal leave to appeal is filed under section 378(3) Cr.P.C on behalf of the appellant/State to impugn the judgment dated 19.07.2019 and order on sentence dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Court of Dr. S. K. Gautam, Additional Sessions Judge-03, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case bearing no. 1601/2018 arising out of FIR bearing no. 0049/2015 registered under sections 308/427 read with section 34 IPC at P.S. Mayur Vihar.
2. The perusal of FIR bearing no. 0049/2015 reflects that it was got registered on the basis of complaint made by Babu under sections 308/427/34 IPC at P.S. Mayur Vihar, Phase 1 wherein the respondent was implicated. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed under sections 308/427/34 IPC. The case was committed to the court of sessions after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C by the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Trial Court vide order dated 07.09.2018 framed the charges for the offences punishable under sections 427/34 IPC and 308/34 IPC against the respondent. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the respondent, examined seven witnesses including Babu the complainant/victim as PW1; Babar, another eye witness as PW2 and Investigating Officers ASI Subhash as PW-6 and ASI Dinesh Tyagi as PW-7. The statement of the respondent was also recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the respondent denied all the incriminating evidence against him and pleaded innocence. The respondent preferred not to lead defence evidence.
3. The complainant/victim PW1 Babu supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that on 15.01.2015 he was going along with his son Babar PW2 from Block 15 to Block 30 in a car and at about 7:30/8:00 p.m. reached at the chowk of 23-24 Block Trilokpuri where the vehicle was being driven slowly due to metro work. Two boys came and gave signal to him to stop the car and then, one boy threw a stone on the glass of the driver's side as a result of which PW1 Babu received an injury on the right side of his temple/head and blood started to ooze out from his head. The respondent was apprehended at the spot and PW1 Babu was moved to LBS Hospital. The police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Ex-PW1/A. The testimony of PW1 was supported by another eye witness PW2 Babar. The respondent in his statement recorded before the Trial Court on 18.01.2019 under section 294 Cr.P.C admitted the MLC prepared in respect of PW1 Babu.
4. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 19.07.2019 had convicted the respondent for offences punishable under sections 427/34 IPC and 324/34 IPC, but acquitted him for the offence punishable under section 308 IPC. The respondent vide order on sentence dated 23.07.2019 was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offences punishable under section 324 IPC. The respondent for the offences punishable under sections 427/34 IPC was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State impugned the judgment dated 19.07.2019 and order on sentence dated 23.07.2019 on the grounds as stated in the petition. The Additional Pubic Prosecutor further argued that the respondent should have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 308.
6. The perusal of MLC pertaining to PW1 Babu, as admitted by the respondent during the course of trial reflects that PW1 Babu at the time of admission in the hospital was conscious and oriented. The MLC does not reflect the admission of PW1 Babu in the hospital. PW1 Babu received injury which was CLW-4x0.5 cm and there was swelling over the right temporal region. The injury stat
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the injury and the intention or knowledge of the accused are essential in determining the appropriate offence under the IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the circumstances under which the injur....
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 court upheld the conviction based solely on one credible witness's testimony, affirming that quality of evidence is more critical than quantity in criminal cases.
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.
The court clarified that conviction under IPC Section 307 can be established not just through harm caused but also through the intent of the accused, underlined by consistent eyewitness accounts.
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
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
