Back
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
(i) Deceased was admittedly at least 65 years old, with her appearance very obviously being that of a very old woman, if a hard push was given to her on a street paved with concrete, the person giving the push necessarily had to have knowledge that such a hard push would result in the victim falling on the hard surface (as can be seen from the photographs, and if a vital part of the body hits such surface with the violence of the push, it would result in her death;
(ii)Though the incident was in the heat of passion upon a sudden fight having taken place with her sons; however, that would not change the fact that seeing her physical condition, the said appellant would not have knowledge that his action could actually cause her death.
(iii) Accused held guilty under S.304 IPC. (Para 121)
(B) Indian Penal Code,1860, S.304 Part-II – Culpable Homicide – Sudden Fight – Reduction in sentence – Appellant gave hard push to an old week lady -She fell on hard surface and died – Sentence of 5 years reduced to 3 years provided he pays compensation of Rs.3 lacs to the legal heirs of the deceased – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 and S.357.
(C) Indian Penal Code,1860, S.304 Part-II – Culpable Homicide – Sudden Fight – Acquittal – Appellant (co-accused) in a sudden fight with sons of deceased lady aged 65 years gave kick on the left side of chest after she had fallen on the road after being hard push by main accused – No external mark of injuries were found in post mortem report regarding injuries attributed to appellant – Therefore, appellants cannot be attributed with common intention with main accused – Appellants acquitted under S.304 Part-II Indian Penal Code but convicted under S.323 IPC – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Para 124)
It is difficult to attribute a common intention to appellant Dinesh, of having knowledge that kicking her on her chest, would be likely to cause her death, unless the force of the kick was so hard that it actually resulted in any kind of bruise or injury to her. No such bruise being present on her left side, it has to be presumed that the kick/leg blow was not given with any great force so as to impute knowledge to the person giving the blow, that his blow may cause her death.
Hence, as regards appellant Dinesh, he is to be acquitted of the charge framed against him in respect of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
CRM No.7699 of 2018 in CRR no.806 of 2018
By this application, invoking jurisdiction under Section 391 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners in the revision petition seek to lead additional evidence before this Court, such evidence being in the form of an application addressed by the doctor on duty (H/S) ICU (A&E), on 02.02.2016, to the person in-charge of the Police Post, PGIMS, Rohtak.
A perusal of the doctors' application (Annexure P-2 with the petition) shows that it is stated therein that the “stay file” of patient Shanti Devi was missing from her bed side since 1:00 pm on 31.01.2016. Therefore, the doctor sought further action by the police with regard to the patients' file being missing. It is also stated in the application that she was admitted in Ward 4/v on 22.01.2016 at 1:05 pm, “in Daycare” on 25.01.2016 at 4:00 pm, and was admitted to the ICU on the same date at 10:10 pm, with her having a history of an assault on her on 21.01.2016.
As a matter of fact, no arguments were addressed on this application by learned counsel for the petitioners, which in any case is misplaced, as the said document was already led by way of evidence as part of Ex.PM, and is available on the reverse of page 191 of the record of evidence led before the trial Court, as would also be noticed by this Court in the main body of this judgment.
Consequently, this application is dismissed.
CRA-S-169-SB of 2018;
CRA-S-183-SB of 2018; and
Crl. Revision No.806 of 2018
These two appeals and one revision petition have all been instituted challenging the judgment of the learned trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar), dated 20.12.2017.
Vide the said judgment that Court convicted the appellants in these two appeals, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 304-II and 323 IPC, both read with Section 34 of the said Code.
Both the appellants were sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.25,000/- also imposed on each of them, for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II, with them to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment in case of default of payment of the fine. As regards the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, they have both been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment each, in addition to a fine of Rs.1000/- having been imposed on each of them, in default of payment of which they are to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.
The revision petition is seen to be filed (actually) on behalf of the deceased, through her legal representatives, shown to be her three sons, as per the memo of parties given in the petition. The deceased Shanti Devi in fact is the person due to whose death the appellants in the two appeals were convicted and sentenced.
2. The facts leading up to the institution of criminal proceedings, are that a complaint was made to the police by the deceased Shanti Devi on 25.01.2016, to the effect that on the night of 21.01.2016, her neighbour, Manish (presently the appellant in CRA-S-183-SB of 2018), parked his car in front of her house (i.e. her and her familys' house) and when her son Bhupender asked him not to park the car there, Manish allegedly hurled abuses on him and grabbed his neck. On hearing the noise of the quarrel, her other sons, Surender and Jitender, are stated to have come out of the house onto the street, upon which Manish was stated to have inflicted leg and fist blows on Surender.
Upon hearing the noise, a friend of Manish, Dinesh (presently the appellant in CRA-S-169-SB of 2018), also came to the spot and allegedly also started beating her sons.
3. On hearing the commotion, the complainant, Shanti Devi, also came out onto the street and intervened in the matter, upon which Manish is stated to have 'felled her down' by pushing her, she then falling upon a water supply pipe in the street.
Shanti Devi is st
SupremeToday
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
