The court found that the appellants acted without intent to kill, reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of premeditation and intention.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Conviction for murder with intent and knowledge - Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; argued that the fatal injury was inflicted in the heat of the moment - Court held that intent to kill was not established and modified conviction to Section 304/34 IPC with a reduced sentence of 10 years. (Paras 1, 12, 13)

(B) Criminal Intent - The court examined the nature of intent and common intention in inflicting harm; found that the use of a stone was a spur-of-the-moment action rather than premeditated. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of killing the deceased during a fistfight, where a stone was used to inflict a fatal blow after a series of punches and kicks. Eyewitnesses testified to the events leading up to the fatal hit. (Paras 3, 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the initial altercation and concluded that only one injury was inflicted with the stone, which led to a reduction in the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Paras 10, 12, 13)

Issues: Whether the appellants acted with the necessary intent for murder or if the fatal blow was an impulsive act during a heated altercation. (Para 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the severity of the appellants' actions and intent, referencing similar case law to establish that the standard of intent required for a Section 302 conviction was not met. (Paras 11, 12)

Result: Conviction modified from Section 302/34 to Section 304/34 IPC with a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. Appeals disposed of accordingly. (Paras 13, 14)

Table of Content
1. appellants challenge convictions and sentences. (Para 1)
2. defense argues lack of intent and provocation. (Para 2)
3. prosecution presents eyewitness testimony. (Para 3 , 4)
4. details of the incident and medical findings. (Para 5 , 6)
5. witness statements indicate enmity. (Para 8 , 9)
6. court reflects on the nature and intent of the act. (Para 10)
7. reference to prior case law for context. (Para 11)
8. court modifies charge based on findings. (Para 12)
9. final decision and sentence modifications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)--By the present appeals, the appellants challenge the impugned judgment dated 26th April, 2019 convicting them for offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 30th April, 2019 directing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that even as per the statement of the sisters of the deceased, the deceased was having an evil eye on the sister and wife of the appellant Sanjay due to which there was enmity. He states that enmity is a double edged weapon and was thus the reason for false implication of the appellant. Further the appellants can be attributed neither any intention nor even the knowledge that hitting with the stone would cause the death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that even taking the prosecution case on its face and believing the witness Tariq Khan, who is stated to be the only eye witness of the prosecution to have witnessed the alleged incident, at best an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC is made out, as the incident took place on the spur of the moment, the appellants were not armed and they were giving fists blows, when in the heat of moment the deceased was hit on the head by a piece of stone resulting in his death.

3. Learned APP on the other hand contends that Tariq Khan who is an eye-witness, on whose statement the rukka was recorded and who brought the deceased in the injured condition to his home, as stated by Girdhari Lal and the two sisters, namely, Neelam and Rekha has clearly deposed the manner in which the appellants in pursuance to a common intention inflicted injury on the vital part i.e. head of the deceased resulting in the death. The post-mortem report clearly notes that the injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and hence the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The prosecution case rest on the deposition of Tariq Khan on whose statement the FIR was registered and in terms of the said statement he deposed in the Court. Tariq Khan deposed that he was working as a Bumper repairer at Road No.33, DDA Market, Punjabi Bagh. On 23rd June, 2014 at around 10.30 PM while he was going to meet his friend Naresh at F Block, J.J. Colony, Madipur, in front of H.No. 493, J.J. Colony, Madipur he saw that Sanjay @ B.C. and Ashok @ Deepak @ Kullu who were also the residents of J.J. Colony, Madipur were beating Manoj Kumar @ Kauwa with kicks and fists. He knew all the three persons, thus he intervened and tried to pacify Ashok and Sanjay. Sanjay pushed him aside and asked Tariq Khan not to intervene, whereafter Deepak @ Kallu sat on the chest of Manoj who was lying on the road due to beating and continued giving him fists blows. He was also striking the head of Manoj with the road. In the meantime, Sanjay picked up a slab of stone (silli ka tukda) lying nearby and hit on the head of Manoj. Thinking that Manoj was dead, both of them fled away, leaving Manoj in a pool of blood on the road. Seeing the fight, though number of people gathered, however nobody came forward. He cried for help and lifted injured Manoj and took him to his house, after wiping the blood

Click Here to Read the rest of this document