Crl. A. 583/2013. Case: Sachin Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | Crl. A. 583/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.K. Sharma and Vipin Rathi, Advocates and For Respondents: Ritu Gauba, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sonal Raj, SI |
| Judges | Sunita Gupta, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 313, 357(3); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 302, 304, 307, 324, 325 |
| Citation | 2014 (4) JCC 2966 |
| Judgement Date | October 29, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. The appellant - Sachin impugns the judgment dated 26.03.2013 and order on sentence dated 01.04.2013 in Sessions Case No. 56/11 FIR No. 242/11 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi where he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as IPC 1860) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months.
2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is as follows.
3. Rani - daughter of deceased - Pramod Jha got married to Naveen Jha, brother of accused sometime in February, 2011. A few days prior to the incident, Rani was quite unwell as such her husband - Naveen Jha had dropped her at her parents' house. On the fateful day i.e. 05.07.2011 at about 9.30 pm, Pramod Jha along with his son Vikas went to the house of accused in order to talk about Rani. On reaching the house of Navin, the appellant - Sachin, who is the younger brother of Navin Jha met them and got angry by alleging that they had married an ailing girl to the family of accused and they are fed up with her continuous treatment. He started hurling abuses and then Pramod Jha came out of the house. However, the appellant - Sachin went inside the house, brought a knife and gave knife blow injuries as a result of which Pramod Jha sustained injuries. The police was informed, ambulance came and removed the injured to GTB Hospital. On receipt of DD No. 42A SI Sunil Kumar went to the spot and came to know that injured has been removed to GTB Hospital as such he went to GTB Hospital where Pramod Jha was found admitted. He was declared unfit for statement. Vikas was present in the hospital. He gave the statement Ex.PW1/A which became bedrock of investigation. An FIR under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code was registered. Eventually the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 7th July, 2011 whereupon Section 302 IPC was added to the case. Post mortem examination of the deceased opined the cause of death to be "haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injury to left femoral vessels produced by sharp edged weapon'. Injury No. 12 was further opined sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was arrested. Pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex. PW11/C, a knife was recovered. The shirt of the victim - Pramod Jha with which his wound was tied was handed over to the police which was seized vide Ex.PW 1/B. Exhibits were sent to FSL. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC.
4. The charge for offence under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the appellant. He abjured his guilt and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied the case of prosecution. According to him, he did not cause injuries to Pramod Jha. In fact Vikas, son of Pramod Jha had picked up the knife from his house and wanted to assault him. He himself hit his father by that knife when the victim tried to intervene. After receiving injuries, Pramod Jha fell inside the house and Vikas ran away. The police arrived in 15-20 minutes, removed Pramod Jha from inside their house. In support of his defence, he examined his father Sushil Kumar Jha.
6. After meticulously examining the evidence led by the prosecution and defence, the learned Trial Court observed that it was appellant/accused who picked up the knife from the kitchen and caused injuries to Pramod Jha by that knife which proved fatal. However, it was observed that a single blow was inflicted on non-vital part of the body and the incident had occurred when the deceased and his son had come to the house of accused to lodge some protest as such the act of the accused was not pre-meditated. Therefore, although charge of murder was not proved but circumstances clearly proved that accused had knowledge that his act is likely to cause death and as such he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly.
7. Feeling dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
8. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that in the initial statement made by the complainant, it was alleged that the injuries were inflicted by knife on the leg of the deceased, however, subsequently a different version was given by alleging that a knife blow was given on chest which escaped and hit on thigh slightly and then again hit the thigh with greater force. It was submitted that this statement of complainant - PW1 Vikas Jha is at variance with the medical evidence. According to the doctor, there was only one stab wound. Challenge was also made to the recovery of knife by alleging that it was effected from an open place. Moreover, the injuries were not on vital parts of the body. It was a case of sudden quarrel without any premeditation, therefore, neither the intention nor knowledge could be attributed to the appellant. At the most, the allegation attracted Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Reliance was placed on Satpal v State, 2012 [4] JCC 2477; Kishan Pal v State, 2004 [2] JCC 1149; Shan & Ors. v Emperor, AIR 1934 Lah.111; Mathew Omalt and Anr. v State of Orissa, 1984 (I) OLR 303; Asu and Anr. v State of Rajasthan, 2000 Crl.LJ 207; Dalapati Majhi v State, 53 (1982) CLT 106; State of Karnataka v Shivalingaiah Alias Handigidda, AIR 1988 SC 115; Thomas v State of Kerala, 1992 Crl.LJ 581 and Golak Chandra Nayak and another v State of Orissa and others, 1993 Crl.L.J 274. It was further submitted that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt as such he is entitled to the acquitted. Alternatively, the appellant is a young boy; he has already remained in custody for quite some time as such he be released on the period already undergone.
9. Rebutting the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant, it was submitted by Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that it was a clear case of intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased inasmuch as after the quarrel was over and the deceased was leaving from the place, the accused went inside the house, brought a kitchen knife and inflicted as many as 13 injuries on his person. The testimony of complainant finds substantial corroboration from the medical evidence as such no fault can be found with the findings of the learned Trial Court. Reliance was placed on Bavisetti Kameshwara Rao @ Babal vs. State of AP, AIR 2008 SC 1854. It was further submitted that the daughter of the deceased could not bear the loss of her father and as such within few months she also died as such compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.PC be also awarded to the legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial