Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
State – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Bahadur – Respondent
Cr.L.P. 515 of 2019
Decided On : 12-09-2023
Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal under Section 308 IPC - [Criminal Appeal] - [Section 308 IPC] - The court opined that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offence under section 308 IPC. The court highlighted the need to prove the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the circumstances under which the injuries were caused.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was acquitted for the offence under section 308 IPC based on the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted him for the offence under section 308 IPC. However, the court convicted the respondent for the offences punishable under section 323 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offence under section 308 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the circumstances under which the injuries were caused. The court referred to previous cases where convictions under section 308 IPC were altered based on the nature of injuries and the absence of premeditation.
Final Decision: The respondent was acquitted for the offence under section 308 IPC based on the benefit of doubt. However, the respondent was convicted for the offences punishable under section 323 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CRL.L.P. 515/2019
1. Leave granted.
2. The application is disposed of.
Criminal Appeal no. _____ (to be numbered)
3. The present Criminal appeal is filed under section 378(1) Cr.P.C. to impugn the judgment dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Court of Dr. Shahabuddin, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC no. 58241/2016 arising out of FIR bearing no.0197/2016 registered under section 308 IPC at P.S. Kirti Nagar whereby the respondents were ordered to be acquitted for the offences punishable under section 308 IPC.
4. As per the prosecution, ASI Rakesh on 08.04.2016, after receipt of DD no.17A reached at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital where injured/Sushila Devi was found to be under treatment vide MLC bearing no.12687 E.No. 38080/2016. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant/Sushila Devi was recorded, wherein she stated that on 08.04.2016, she had asked Anita who is her neighbour to keep the garbage aside on which Anita picked up the garbage in her hand and made a gesture of throwing it towards jhuggi of complainant/Sushila Devi and said "I will throw it into your house". In the meantime kamlesh Bahadur/respondent who is the husband of Anita gave a blow by danda on the head of complainant/Sushila Devi and she sutained injuries on arm and hand. The Complainant/Sushila Devi was taken to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital. The Investigating Officer, after conclusion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under section 308 IPC. The Trial Court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar-I, ASJ, Special Judge (NDPS), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 21.08.2017 framed the charge for the offence punishable under section 308 IPC against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined 08 witnesses including the injured/Sushila Devi as PW-2 and the doctor as PW-5. The statement of the respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C on 20.03.2019 wherein he pleaded false implication and denied the incriminating evidence against him. The respondent preferred to lead defence evidence and accordingly, DW-1/R.P Singh and DW-2 i.e respondent himself (under section 315 Cr.P.C) got examined.
5. The Trial Court of Dr. Shahabuddin, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide judgment 25.03.2019 opined that the respondent is entitled for the benefit of doubt and accordingly the respondent was ordered to be acquitted. The relevant part of the judgment dated 25.03.2019 is reproduced as under:
22. On the basis of above mentioned discussion, coupled with entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, produced on behalf of both sides, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that ingredients of the offence section 308 IPC are not made out against accused herein qua this matter, beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution side has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused, in this case, beyond reasonable doubt, for the alleged offence, for which charge has been framed against him. Accordingly, the accused Kamlesh Bahadur is entitled for benefit of doubt and consequently he is entitled for acquittal in this case. Hence, this accused is hereby acquitted for offence u/s 308 IPC for which charge was framed against him in this case.
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the impugned judgment was passed in utter disregard of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and during the course of the arguments, referred the testimony of the injured i.e. PW-2/Sushila Devi. The Additional Public Prosecutor also referred the medical evidence by arguing that the PW-2/Sushila Devi was admitted in the hospital and she received injuries. The Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondent.
7. The counsel for the respondent during the course of the arguments, has referred cross-examination of PW-2/Sushila Devi wherein
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 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.
Intent to kill under Section 307 IPC necessitates specific evidence; absence of concrete proof results in acquittal for grievous intent while confirming lesser charges.
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 held that acquittal requires compelling reasons for interference, emphasizing that mere serious injury does not suffice to establish intent under Section 307 of IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's actions constituted criminal trespass, assault, and causing death, and the medical evidence supported the conclusion that the in....
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
The court modified the conviction of the accused from attempted murder to causing grievous hurt, emphasizing the need for direct evidence in serious charges.
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
