Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
VINOD KUMAR & ORS – Appellants
Versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
CRL. A. 20/2015
Decided On : 30-05-2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302/304 PART I/II OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - COMMON INTENTION - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - WEAPON OF OFFENCE - SUDDEN QUARREL - GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION - EXCEPTION 1 OF SECTION 300 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - ALTERATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 302/304 Part I/II of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained during a sudden quarrel.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants had the intention to cause bodily injuries to the deceased, but not to cause death. The court relied on the medical evidence, the nature of the weapon used, the absence of premeditation, and the lack of a cooling-off period to conclude that the appellants were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The court altered the conviction and sentence of the appellants accordingly.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had the intention to cause death of the deceased? 2. Whether the appellants were guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The court relied on the following factors to reach this conclusion: * The medical evidence showed that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not grave in nature and that the cause of death was an operative procedure. * The nature of the weapon used, an iron rod and an iron pipe, was not as deadly as a knife or a gun. * There was no blood found on the weapons of offence, which made it difficult to connect them with the crime. * The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory and there were major discrepancies with regard to the role of the appellants in the crime. * There was no previous enmity between the families of the appellants and the deceased. * The quarrel between the children was lingering in their mind and tormented them mentally. Treating the time gap between the quarrel and the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased to be negligible, we conclude that the appellants had not committed the crime with any pre-meditation. * The intention probably was to merely cause such bodily injuries.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and altered the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The court also modified the sentence awarded to the appellants and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The fine imposed upon the appellants and the default sentence awarded to them and the sentence awarded to them under Section 323/325/452 of the Indian Penal Code remained unaltered.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2014 and order on sentence dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 20/2014, by virtue of which all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs. 200/- each as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two days for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs. 500/- each as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs. 500/- each as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days for the offence punishable under Section 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 5,000/- each as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. It would be necessary to set out the brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal. The brief facts as noted by the trial court are as under:
“On 20.8.2010, Mohar Singh (deceased) along with his wife Raj Shree (PW1), his sons Satender, Jitender (PW2), Pratap (PW13) were present at their house situated at A23/29, 36 Prem Nagar-III, Delhi. All of a sudden, accused Hari Chand along with his sons Manoj, Vinod and Jitender entered their house and started abusing. Accused Hari Chand instigated his sons by saying “ye sale jyada bante hein inko chhorna nahi”. Accused Hari Chand and Manoj were carrying iron “saria” in their hands. Accused Jitender caught hold Mohar Singh (deceased) and accused Vinod caught hold Pratap (injured) and started beating them with fists and kicks. Accused Hari Chand and Manoj were beating Mohar Singh and Pratap with “sarias”. Accused persons also gave beatings to Raj Shree (PW1) and Jitender (PW2), wife and son of Mohar Singh (deceased) with kicks and fists.
It is the further case of the prosecution that accused Kuldeep Singh Rathor @ Pintu and Kamal Kashyap (already expired), friends of accused Manoj, also came there and started beating the complainant Raj Shree (PW1) and her aforesaid family members with fists and kicks alone with other accused persons. Jitender sustained injuries on his nose and Mohar Singh and Pratap Singh sustained injuries on their head. Thereafter, accused persons fled away from the spot. Someone from the public informed the PCR and DD no.27 A was recorded at P.S Aman Vihar in this regard. PCR van reached there and removed the injured persons to SGM hospital. Said DD was marked to ASI Sajjan (PW21) Singh for investigation.
ASI Sajjan Singh reached at SGM hospital where he found the patients unfit for statement. In the meanwhile, injured persons were shifted to Pratap Singh was declared fit for statement by the doctors and his statement was recorded by ASI Sajjan Singh. ASI Sajjan Singh prepared the rukka and got registered the FIR. The blood stained clothes of Mohar Singh were received by Raj Shree from the doctors on 23.8.2010 and she handed over the same to the IO, who sealed and seized the same. Raj Shree also handed over the blood stained vest and pant of Pratap (injured) to ASI Sajjan Singh which were also sealed and seized. MLC's of the injured persons were collected by the IO.
It is alleged that on 27.8.2010 injured Mohar Singh expired in the hospital. Accused persons were arrested. Weapons of offence i.e. iron pipe and iron rod (sariya) are shown to ha
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
