JUDGMENT

(ORAL)

1. Appellant was tried for committing murder of Kundan Verma, s/o Laxmi Prasad Bhagat, on the night intervening 9th/ 10th June, 2012, in a room of CPWD Horticulture Nursery, at Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi and upon conclusion of trial in FIR No.67/2012, registered at Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi, he stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment of 30th March, 2016 and vide order of 11th April, 2016, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. The substratum of prosecution case, as noticed in the impugned judgment, is as under:-

Verily, on 09.06.2012, 5/6 persons were deputed to report to Munshi Ram in order to do some work in the park of Sadiq Nagar. However, the labours arrived late at about 01.00 P.M., or so and it was decided that the scheduled work shall be started tomorrow morning. Mushi Ram handed over the keys of the store room / rest room to that group so that they may stay there overnight and start their work early in the morning presumably due to the heat being at its peak in the month of June. When Munshi Ram arrived at the nursey on the next morning i.e. 10.06.2012, he found that the iron gate was locked. He was having a duplicate key, with the help of which he opened the gate and found one of those persons who were deputed to work and permitted to stay overnight, in the pool of blood. Police arrived at the scene from the police station Defence Colony in terms of the information received and reduced the same into writing vide D.D. No. 11-A.

3. Prosecution had relied upon evidence of 30 witnesses and material evidence adverted to, is of Monu Verma (PW-13) and Munshi Ram (PW- 15). Apart from it, there is evidence of Investigating Officer - SI Rattan Singh (PW-22). The medical evidence comprises of depositions of Dr. Ravinder Shukla (PW-23) who had prepared the MLC (Ex.PW-23/A) of deceased and Dr. Sanjay Kumar-II (PW-5), who had conducted post- mortem of the deceased. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was antemortem craniocerebral injury and its complications produced by blunt force, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

4. Weapon of offence i.e. small gas cylinder (Ex.P1) was recovered from the spot. The stand taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the trial court is as under:-

“I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case. I was called to the PS to make some enquiry but thereafter, I was falsely implicated in this case and then produced before the court. Infact, the police has implicated me falsely in order to solve their case.”

5. Appellant had chosen not to lead evidence in his defence.

6. At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant has endeavoured to assail the evidence of Monu Verma (PW-13) and Munshi Ram (PW-15) but in the alternative, has submitted that the incident in question was a result of a petty quarrel which took place at the spot and injury sustained by Kundan Verma is solitary one. According to learned counsel for appellant, Monu Verma (PW-13) in his evidence has clarified that the quarrel had taken place on a petty issue between him and appellant. So, it is submitted that appellant had no intention to cause death of Kundan Verma and offence, if any, committed by appellant comes within the ambit of Section 304-II of IPC.

7. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supports the impugned judgment and submits that offence committed by the appellant is of murder and there is ample evidence to show that he had the intention to cause death of the deceased. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of evidence on record, we find that Monu Verma (PW-13) in his evidence has categorically deposed that a quarrel had taken place on a petty issue and when the appellant had started beating Monu Verma (PW-13), Kundan Verma had come to rescue him and thereafter, only appellant had grabbed the collar of his shirt and slapped him twice and b