2018 Supreme(P&H) 1515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Dinesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-169, 183-SB of 2018 (O&M), Crl. Revision No.806 of 2018
Decided On : 02-07-2018

The knowledge of the likelihood of death is an essential ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC. Such knowledge can be imputed to a person if he/she has the knowledge that his/her act is likely to cause death, even if he/she does not have the intention to cause death.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 304-II IPC - SECTION 323 IPC - SECTION 3 (2) (V) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - SECTION 506 IPC - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELIHOOD OF DEATH - COMMON INTENTION - SENTENCE - ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE - COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased Shanti Devi was allegedly pushed by appellant Manish, causing her to fall on a water supply pipe and sustain injuries. Appellant Dinesh then allegedly kicked her on the left side of her chest. Shanti Devi died on 24.02.2016, during the course of her treatment. The appellants were charged with offences punishable under Sections 304-II, 323, 506 IPC, and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court convicted the appellants for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-II and 323 IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants were sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC, and 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. The appellants challenged the judgment of the trial court by way of appeals and a revision petition.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-II, 323, 506 IPC, and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution case? 3. Whether the medical evidence established that the deceased's death was caused by the injuries sustained as a result of the appellants' acts? 4. Whether the appellants had the intention to cause death or the knowledge that their acts were likely to cause death? 5. Whether the appellants had a common intention to cause death? 6. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant Manish was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC, as he had the knowledge that pushing the deceased, who was 65 years old, on a concrete street could result in her death. However, the court acquitted the appellant Dinesh of the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC, as there was no evidence to show that the kick/leg blow inflicted by him caused any injury to the deceased. 2. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution case, as the deceased was admitted to the hospital the day after the incident and the FIR was registered within a reasonable time thereafter. 3. The court held that the medical evidence established that the deceased's death was caused by the injuries sustained as a result of the appellants' acts. The court relied on the opinion of the Board of Doctors, which stated that the cause of death was the chest injury as described and its complications. 4. The court held that the appellant Manish had the knowledge that his act of pushing the deceased could result in her death, considering her age and physical condition. However, the court held that the appellant Dinesh did not have the knowledge that his act of kicking the deceased on the left side of her chest could result in her death, as there was no evidence to show that the kick caused any injury to her. 5. The court held that there was no common intention between the appellants to cause death, as the appellant Dinesh's act of kicking the deceased was not done with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. 6. The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate for the appellant Manish, but it reduced the sentence for the appellant Dinesh to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and the appeal of the appellant Dinesh. The court allowed the appeal of the appellant Manish to the extent of reducing the sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC to 3 years rigorous imprisonment, with a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid by him to the legal heirs of the deceased.