Delhi District Court
State vs . Regan Pradhan on 19 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF O. P. SAINI: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPL.
JUDGE (CBI04), PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Old SC No. 8953/2016
New SC No. 50/2018
State Vs. Regan Pradhan
FIR No. 609/2013
U/s: 302 IPC
PS: Vasant Vihar
1. Date of Institution : 29.03.2014
2. Date of Commencement
of Final Arguments : 17.01.2019
3. Date of Conclusion of
Final Arguments : 18.01.2019
4. Date of Reserving Order : 18.01.2019
5. Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2019
6. Whether Acquitted or
Convicted? : Convicted under Section
304 Part II, IPC.
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. PP for the State.
Accused in judicial custody with Sh. Jatin Sapra,
Advocate.
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts of the Case The instant case was registered on 30.12.2013 on the ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 1 of 39 complaint of one Sh. Umesh Thapa. He reported that he is a native of West Bengal but was living in Delhi and was in the business of selling Momos. On 29.12.2013, he was not feeling well and so went to the room of his friend Vishal at 95A, Munirka. At about 08:00 PM, Vishal, Sanju and a guest of Vishal were taking drinks. After taking drinks, they went downstairs. Sanju and his friend returned at about 03:00 AM. After some time, Regan Pradhan, Sanju and Arun Thapa, who were known to him from before, also returned to the room. All of them again started taking drinks. When they were taking drinks, Regan Pradhan started talking foul about exgirlfriend of Arun Thapa, to which Arun Thapa protested. On this, they started abusing each other. Due to this, Regan Pradhan felt annoyed and told Arun Thapa that he would dispose him off and picked up a salad knife and struck it in his chest. Blood started oozing from the chest of Arun Thapa and on this Regan Pradhan fled away from the room. Umesh Thapa and his friend took Arun Thapa to Safdarjung Hospital, where he was declared brought dead by the doctor.
Police reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Umesh Thapa, leading to the registration of the instant case.
2. During investigation, crime team was summoned to the spot and it got the spot photographed, blood stained exhibits were collected from the spot, knife used in the incident was also recovered and seized, accused was arrested, his personal search ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 2 of 39 was conducted, site plan was prepared, exhibits were sent for examination to FSL and opinion, call detail record (CDR) of the mobile phone of the accused and other witnesses were collected, statements of witnesses were recorded, investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed in the Court.
Committal of Case and Framing of Charge
3. On completion of formalities under Section 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 24.04.2014.
4. Vide order dated 27.05.2014, my learned Predecessor was pleased to frame charge under Section 304, Part I IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence of the Prosecution
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined thirty witnesses in all.
6. PW 1 is Sh. Shyam Gupta. He is tenant in House No. 93A, Village Munirka, New Delhi, belonging to Sh. Daya Ram Tokas. He is also Caretaker of House No. 95A, where a girl by the name of Pavitra Bhujal was a tenant in Room No. 13. In the morning of 30.12.2013, he came to know that there was quarrel in the night in Room No. 13 and a boy had expired.
7. PW 2 is Sh. Daya Ram Tokas. He has deposed on the same lines as deposed to by PW 1 Sh. Shyam Gupta.
___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 3 of 39
8. PW 3 is ASI Shiv Kumar. On 31.12.2013, he was posted in Police Station Vasant Vihar and on receipt of DD No. 7/A, Ex PW 10/A, regarding a stabbing incident at House No. 95A, Munirka, he reached the spot with PW 23 Ct. Kripal. There, he came to know that the injured had been removed to Safdarjung Hospital. He left Ct. Kripal on the spot and went to the hospital, where he came to know that injured Arun Thapa had already expired. In the hospital, doctor handed over to him a pullinda containing cloths of the deceased, which was seized by him vide Ex PW 3/A. One Umesh Thapa, friend of the deceased, was present in the hospital and he recorded his statement, Ex PW 3/B, and returned to the spot. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW 23A Inspector Anil Sharma. From the spot, a sofa cover with blood stains, cigarette buds, empty glasses and liquor bottles were seized vide memos, Ex PW 3/C to F. Accused Regan Pradhan was arrested vide memo, Ex PW 3/G, and his personal search was conducted vide memo, Ex PW 3/H, and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo, Ex PW 3/J, consequent to which a knife was recovered and its sketch was prepared vide memo, Ex PW 3/K, and it was seized vide memo, Ex PW 3/L. A jacket of the accused was also seized vide Ex PW 3/M. The accused was taken to hospital for medical examination and his blood sample was seized vide memo, Ex PW 3/N. He has identified the cigarette case and cigarette buds, blood stained sofa cover, knife, leather jacket, glasses and liquor ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 4 of 39 bottles, Ex P3/1 to 6. He also collected viscera from the hospital and handed over the same to PW 23A Inspector Anil Sharma, which was seized vide memo, Ex PW 3/Q. He also got the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased and after identification of the dead body, he handed over the same to his relatives vide receipt, Ex PW 3/P.
9. PW 4 is Dr. Kartik Krishna, Sr. Resident of AIIMS. On 01.01.2014, he along with Dr. Rajesh conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Arun Thapa. The postmortem report is Ex PW 4/A and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injury No. 1, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
10. PW 5 is Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Resident of AIIMS. He has deposed on the same lines as deposed to by PW 4 Dr. Kartik Krishna.
11. PW 6 is Sh. Sajjan Thapa, brother of the deceased. He identified the dead body of the deceased vide statement, Ex PW 6/A.
12. PW 7 is Dr. Meenakshi. On 30.12.2013, she was working as Medical Officer in Safdarjung Hospital. On that day, Arun Thapa was brought dead to the hospital. Dr. Irshad Alam Khan prepared his MLC, Ex PW 7/A, under her supervision.
13. PW 8 is Sh. Manji Rai, brotherinlaw of the deceased. He identified the dead body of the deceased vide dead body ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 5 of 39 identification memo, Ex PW 8/A.
14. PW 9 is Sh. Umesh Thapa, complainant in the case. He has narrated the events in the same manner as narrated by him to the police in his statement, Ex PW 9/A, leading to the registration of the instant case. He has also proved his statement, Ex PW 9/B, recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
15. PW 10 is ASI Jagdish, who was working as Duty Officer on 30.12.2013. On receipt of information about a stabbing incident at House No. 95, Village Munirka, he recorded the information at 05:47 AM vide DD No. 7/A, Ex PW 10/A.
16. PW 11 is Ct. Yogender. On 30.12.2013, he was working as Duty Constable in Safdarjung Hospital. On that day, he handed over one sealed packet sealed with the seal of SJH, containing the cloths of deceased Arun Thapa to ASI Shiv Kumar, which was seized by him vide memo, Ex PW 3/A.
17. PW 12 is W/Ct. Sangeeta. On 30.12.2013, she was posted in Central PCR and on receipt of information about a stabbing incident, she recorded the same in the PCR Form, Ex PW 12/A, and a certificate issued under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act is Ex PW 12/B.
18. PW 13 is ASI Raj Singh. On 30.12.2013, he was posted in Mobile Crime Team, South District. On receipt of information about the stabbing incident, he went to the spot with Ct. P. Patil, inspected the spot and prepared report, Ex PW 13/A. ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 6 of 39
19. PW 14 is Ct. P. Patil. He went to the spot on 30.12.2013 with PW 13 ASI Raj Singh and photographed the scene of crime. The photographs are collectively Ex P1 and negatives of which are collectively Ex P2.
20. PW 15 is Sh. Vishal Kumar. He is a friend of PW 9 Umesh Thapa. He has deposed on the same lines as deposed to by PW 9 Umesh Thapa.
21. PW 16 is Ms. Pavitra Bhujal. She was a tenant in House No. 95A, Munirka Village, belonging to PW 2 Sh. Daya Ram Tokas. On 30.12.2013, she came to know about murder of Arun Thapa. She gave a copy of tenant verification form, Ex PW 29/H, to the IO.
22. PW 17 is Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel. He furnished the customer application form and call detail record (CDR) of Mobile No. 8800140398, in the name of Umesh Thapa, to the IO. The customer application form is Ex PW 17/A, certified copy of the CDR is Ex PW 17/B and the certificate under Section 65 Evidence Act is Ex PW 17/C.
23. PW 18 is Ct. Shakti Singh. On 30.12.2013, he took the accused to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination. After getting the accused medically examined, he returned to the police station, handed over the MLC and a sealed pullinda to the IO, which was seized by him vide Ex PW 3/N.
24. PW 19 is Ct. M. Balaji. On 04.02.2014, he was posted in Police Station Vasant Vihar. On that day, he took nine sealed ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 7 of 39 pullindas with three sample seals from the Malkhana for being deposited in FSL, Rohini. As long as the pullindas remained with him, the same were not tampered with. He proved the acknowledgment slip and road certificate, Ex PW 19/A to D.
25. PW 20 is Ct. Om Prakash. On 30.12.2013, he was posted in Police Station Vasant Vihar. On that day, he delivered copies of the FIR to the residence of senior officers and area Metropolitan Magistrate.
26. PW 21 is Inspector Madan Pal. On 12.02.2014 and 13.02.2014, he visited the scene of crime and thereafter prepared a scaled site plan, Ex PW 21/A.
27. PW 22 is Dr. Sarabjit Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini. He examined the exhibits collected in the case and sent to FSL for examination. He detected blood on some of the exhibits and the DNA profile of blood sample also matched with that of the deceased and the accused and his report in this regard is Ex PW 22/A.
28. PW 23 is Ct. Kripal Singh. He had accompanied PW 3 ASI Shiv Kumar to the spot on the date of incident. He has deposed on the same lines as deposed to by PW 3 ASI Shiv Kumar.
29. PW 23A is Inspector Anil Sharma. He had also reached the spot and had also conducted part investigation. He has deposed on the same lines as deposed to by PW 3 ASI Shiv Kumar. Apart from that, he prepared inquest papers, Ex PW 23/I to K. ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 8 of 39
30. PW 24 is HC Manoj Kumar, MHC(M), Police Station Vasant Vihar. He deposed that on 30.12.2013, he was working as MHC(M) and on that day, Inspector Anil Sharma deposited seven pullindas with him sealed with the seal of 'VVI'. Again on 01.01.2014, Inspector Anil Sharma deposited three sealed pullindas with him. The entries made by him in this regard is Ex PW 24/A and B. On 04.04.2014, he got the exhibits sent to FSL through Ct. Balaji and the receipts in this regard are Ex PW 24/C and D.
31. PW 25 is Ct. Surender. On 13.11.2017, he was posted in Police Station Vasant Vihar and on that day, he took a sealed pullinda from MHC(M) and deposited the same with Forensic Department, AIIMS and as long as the pullinda remained with him, it was not tampered with. On 07.12.2017, he collected the pullinda, second opinion and some documents from PW 26 Dr. Hemant Kumar of AIIMS and deposited the same with MHC(M).
32. PW 26 is Dr. Hemant Kumar Kanwar, Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS. He had received a pullinda containing a knife, Ex P3/3, and examined the knife and opined that the injury suffered by deceased Arun Thapa could have been caused by this knife. His report is Ex PW 26/A and the sketch of the knife prepared by him is Ex PW 26/B.
33. PW 27 is HC Manoj Kumar. However, he has inadvertently been examined again and has deposed on the same lines as deposed to by him as PW 24.
___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 9 of 39
34. PW 28 is Sh. M. L. Meena, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini. He examined the viscera of the deceased and found the presence of Ethyl Alcohol, but no poison was detected. His report is Ex PW 28/A.
35. PW 29 is Inspector Som Nath. He conducted part investigation of the case and collected PCR Form, Ex PW 12/A, regarding the call made to the PCR about the incident by moving application, Ex PW 29/A, and by moving an application, Ex PW 29/B, before Airtel, he collected the CDR, Ex PW 17/B, of mobile No. 8800140398 of Umesh Thapa. He also collected the CDR of mobile No. 9999953747 of accused Regan Pradhan and his application is Ex PW 29/C and the CDR is Ex PW 29/D and the certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act is Ex PW 29/E. He also collected the CDR of mobile No. 9711106034 of deceased Arun Thapa and the CDR is Ex PW 29/F and the certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act is Ex PW 29/G. He also collected tenant verification form, Ex PW 29/H. He recorded the statements of witnesses, completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet in the Court.
Statement of the Accused and Defence Evidence
36. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the allegations against him to be incorrect stating that no such death as deposed to by the witnesses ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 10 of 39 was caused by him. He also submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He expressed his desire to examine himself as a defence witness and accordingly filed an application under Section 315 CrPC. The application was allowed and he has examined himself as DW 1.
He deposed that at the time of alleged incident involving death of Sh. Arun Thapa, he was not present in the room, where the incident had taken place. He also deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
Submission of the Parties
37. It is submitted by learned Addl. PP that in the intervening nigh of 29/30.12.2013, accused Regan Pradhan and his friends, namely Arun Thapa, Umesh Thapa, Vishal, Sanju and one more person were taking drinks at House No. 95A, Munirka. During the drinks, accused Regan Pradhan started discussing about exgirlfriend of Arun Thapa and in this process, hot words were exchanged between the two, due to which accused Regan Pradhan picked up a vegetable knife lying in the room and hit Arun Thapa in his chest and thereafter he ran away from the spot. It is submitted that subsequently, Sh. Arun Thapa died of the injuries caused by the accused. It is further submitted that this version has been fully supported by PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa and PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar. It is further submitted that the weapon of offence was also ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 11 of 39 recovered from the possession of the accused. My attention has been invited to the deposition of the two witnesses, evidence of the doctors and other relevant documents. It is submitted that in view of the evidence led on record by the prosecution, the deposition of the accused as DW 1 is of no avail. It is submitted that on the basis of evidence led on record, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused under Section 304 IPC. However, he has left the matter to the discretion of the Court as to in which part of it the case falls.
On the other hand, it is submitted by learned defence counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case, as the offence was actually committed by one Nitin and not by accused Regan Pradhan. It is submitted that in the initial call made to the PCR, it was reported that Arun Thapa had a quarrel with one Nitin. It is submitted that the actual quarrel was with Nitin, who was a friend of Sanju, but the said Nitin has been let off by police and Regan Prdhan has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that there was no quarrel of the deceased with Regan Pradhan and he was not involved in the incident at all. It is also submitted that call to the PCR was also made by Sh. Vishal Yadav and not by PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa, as claimed by him. It is submitted that PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa has deposed that he had informed the police on 100 number, whereas the PCR From, Ex PW 12/A, records that the call was made by Sh. Vishal Yadav. It is ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 12 of 39 further submitted that on account of this discrepancy, there is serious manipulation of the prosecution case, aimed at falsely implicating accused Regan Pradhan in this case. It is further submitted that there is also a contradiction as to how the deceased was removed to the hospital, that is, by PCR Van or by Auto rickshaw. It is also submitted that there is also a contradiction about the place from where accused Regan Pradhan was arrested. It is submitted that as per PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa, the accused was arrested from near the spot, whereas as per PW 23A Inspector Anil Sharma, he was arrested from House No. A67, Budh Vihar, Munirka. It is submitted that this is also a serious contradiction. It is also submitted that there is a serious contradiction as to the time at which the incident took place. It is submitted that PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa deposed in his examinationinchief that the incident took place at about 02:0002:30 AM, whereas in his cross examination, he deposed that the incident took place between 03:3004:00 AM. It is further submitted that PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar deposed that the incident took place between 03:0004:00 AM. It is also submitted that the DD Entry No. 7A, Ex PW 10/A, was recorded at 05:47 AM and the PCR call was recorded at 05:35 AM. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, the doctor reported the time of incident as 04:30 AM. It is repeatedly submitted that the contradiction in the time of incident strikes at the root of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the knife ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 13 of 39 has been planted by the prosecution, as there are different versions about its recovery from the place of occurrence or from the residence of the accused. It is also submitted that this is further compounded by the fact that the two sketches of knife, Ex PW 3/K and PW 26/B, are different. It is also submitted that there is contradiction as to whether the room, where the incident took place, was locked or not. It is repeatedly submitted that there are various contradictions in the case of the prosecution and these contradictions go to the root of the matter and due to these contradictions entire case of the prosecution has become doubtful and may be discarded. It is further submitted that PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa was kept in the police station for twothree days before his statement, Ex PW 9/B, was got recorded under Section 164 CrPC. It is submitted that this shows that the witness was put under pressure by the police before his statement was recorded and this makes his entire deposition in the Court suspect. It is submitted that due to this reason his testimony may be discarded in its entirety. It is further submitted that the prosecution has changed the entire facts of the case, as the accused was not present on the spot when the incident took place, as he had come out of the room to make a telephonic call, when the incident happened. It is further submitted that the incident took place due to business rivalry between the persons present over there, as all were in the business of selling Momos and are also natives of West Bengal. It is ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 14 of 39 submitted that the deposition of the accused as DW 1 is natural and acceptable and the same may be accepted and the prosecution version may be discarded for the aforesaid reasons. It is submitted that the accused is innocent and may be acquitted and in the alternative if he is held guilty, his act falls in Part II of Section 304 IPC.
38. In rebuttal, learned Addl. PP has reiterated his arguments that there is clearcut evidence against the accused in the testimony of PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa and PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar. It is further submitted minor contradictions here and there in the testimony of witnesses do not impact the prosecution case, as the incident took place in the night, when the accused, deceased as well as the witnesses had consumed liquor. It is also submitted that the call to the PCR was made by PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa and this has been confirmed by PW 17 Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, who has deposed that call to the police was made from Mobile No. 8800140398 and the same is registered in the name of PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa. It is submitted that all submissions of the defence are without merit and may be rejected.
39. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the bar in the light of material on record.
Oral evidence and involvement of the accused in the incident
40. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Arun ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 15 of 39 Thapa was killed by accused Regan Pradhan and in this regard, my attention has been invited to the oral evidence led by the prosecution to emphasize that the role of the accused in the incident is clearly established.
On the other hand, case of the defence is that the real culprit is one Nitin, who was a friend of one Sanju, who was also present on the spot, but the prosecution has not investigated the case properly and instead implicated the accused in this case.
41. Let me take note of the oral evidence on record in this regard.
42. PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa, is the most important witness in the case. On his statement, Ex PW 9/A, the instant case was registered. The relevant part of his testimony reads as under:
"......In the month of December 2013, I was residing in house no. A67, Budh Vihar, Munirka, New Delhi. On 29.12.2013, I was not feeling well. So I went to the room of my friend Vishal who was residing in house no. 95A, Munirka Village, New Delhi. I went to the room of my friend in day time. Vishal and his friend Sanju and his other friend whose name I do not recollect now were consuming liquor at about 6/7 PM in his room. After consuming the liquor, they left the room. I remained in the room of my friend Vishal. At around 2/2:30 AM Vishal, Sanju, Reegan (accused present in the court today correctly identified), Arun and one another friend, whose name I do not know, came to the room. First of all Vishal and ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 16 of 39 his friend came to the room of Vishal and thereafter, Sanju, Arun and Reegan came to the room. They had come with some liquor and they had already consumed liquor outside. The said five persons started consuming liquor in the room. I was in the room and was taking rest. The said five persons including the accused Reegan started talking to each other and during the talk amongst them, Arun and Reegan were discussing about the girl friend of Arun. Accused Reegan was discussing about the Ex girl friend of Arun. Some hot words were exchanged between Arun and accused Reegan. Arun did not like the discussion about his Ex girl friend. In the meantime, during the hot discussion between accused Reegan and Arun, accused Reegan picked up a vegetable knife from the room and hit upon Arun on his chest. After hitting by a knife, accused Reegan fled away from the spot. Blood oozed out from the chest of Arun......."
In the crossexamination also, PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa, reiterated as under:
"......The knife was lying on the sofa. Accused Reegan had stabbed from his right hand on the middle of his chest. It is correct that accused Reegan had left the spot after leaving the knife at the spot......"
In the crossexamination of this witness, there is nothing of any significance, which could discredit the evidentiary value of his testimony. In the crossexamination, there is no ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 17 of 39 suggestion to the effect that the offensive act was committed by one Nitin, friend of Sanju. The only suggestion given to the witness is that he deposed falsely to save the actual culprit. It was not suggested to him as to who the real culprit was. It was not suggested to him that any Nitin was present on the spot. This witness has described the events clearly and sequentially and his deposition is clear, cogent and categorical. The role of the accused stands fully established by the deposition of this witness. Not only this, his deposition is corroborated by PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar. There is nothing on the record which shows that he was under any pressure of anyone.
43. PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar was also present on the spot at the time of the incident. Thus, he is also an important witness and the relevant part of his deposition reads as under:
"......On 29.12.13, my friend Sanju and friend of Sanju came to my room and we all three started taking liquor. At about 2.00 mid night, after taking liquor, we came outside our room for eating food as we were hungry. In the gali, accused Regan Pradhan, present in court today (correctly identified by witness) and one Arun Thapa met us in the gali. They asked us as to where were we going. I replied that we are going to take food. Accused Regan Pradhan and Arun Thapa also accompanied us for taking food. We went to Hotel Chinar, situated at boarder of Gurgaon opposite toll bridge. We all five (myself, Arun Thapa, Sanju, friend of ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 18 of 39 Sanju and accused Regan Pradan) again took liquor and ate food and after taking food, I along with my friend Sanju and Sanju's friend, first entered to my rented premises, at about 3.00/4.00am, we also took one half bottle of liquor with us. Umesh Thapa was watching TV while sitting on bed. I slept on the floor. Accused Regan Pradhan, Arun Thapa knocked our door after parking their car. Umesh Thapa opened the gate of the room. I also got up. Accused Regan Pradhan and Sanju, Arun Thapa, again started taking liquor. Friend of Sanju had slept on the bed. Arun Thapa had stated with accused Regan Pradhan that he was having affair with his girl friend. On this issue, an argument (discussion) had taken place between Arun Thapa and Regan Pradhan. I asked both of them not to quarrel with each other. One vegetable cutter knife was lying on sofa, where we ate salad, while taking liquor. Accused Regan Pradhan took out the said knife from sofa and gave the same blow on chest of Arun Thapa. Blood started oozing out from the chest of Arun Thapa. Meanwhile, accused Regan Pradhan ran away from the room with the knife......"
In the crossexamination of this witness, the defence also failed to extract anything to the benefit of the accused. In the crossexamination also, this witness reiterated that at the time of incident, Sanju, Arun Thapa and Regan Pradhan were having alcohol. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused in this case. The evidence of this witness is also clear, ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 19 of 39 cogent, categorical and free of all ambiguities. There is no material on record to show that the two witnesses were under pressure or that they falsely implicated the accused.
44. In view of the clearcut deposition of these two witnesses, the role of the accused in the incident stands fully established. In the face of such clearcut oral evidence, the deposition of the accused as DW 1 is also of no consequence. There is no merit in the submission of learned defence counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
Information to the PCR and role of Nitin
45. It has been argued by learned defence counsel that as per PCR Form, Ex PW 12/A, the call was made to the PCR by one Vishal Yadav, wherein he had stated that there was a quarrel with Nitin. It is submitted that in order to falsely implicate the accused in this case, the prosecution has changed this version to the effect that the call was made by PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa and Sh. Umesh Thapa was made to implicate accused Regan Pradhan in this case.
46. PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa has deposed in the examinationinchief that he had informed the police at 100 number immediately after the incident. In the crossexamination of this witness, it was not suggested to him that the call to the police was not made by him. Not only this, PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar has also deposed that Sh. Umesh Thapa had called the police at 100 ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 20 of 39 number. No question was put to this witness also that the call was not made by PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa. Not only this, in the PCR Form, Ex PW 12/A, the call was made from Mobile No. 8800140398. PW 17 Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel has deposed that this mobile number has been allotted to Sh. Umesh Thapa. It is thus clear that the call to the police was made by PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa and not by any Vishal Yadav. PW 29 Inspector Som Nath has also clarified this issue that in PCR Form, "Regan" was wrongly recorded as "Nitin". There is phonetic similarity in the two words and the mistake appears to be genuine one. It was nowhere suggested as to PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa and PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar that any Nitin was also present on the spot and it was he, who had quarreled with deceased Arun Thapa and killed him. From the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that the argument has been raised to just waste the time of the Court.
Contradictions in the Prosecution Case
47. It has been argued by learned defence counsel that the case of the prosecution suffers from various contradictions, including as to how injured Arun Thapa was removed to the hospital, the place from where the accused was arrested, time of incident, place of recovery of knife, difference in sketches of knife, whether the room was locked or not and some other contradictions.
___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 21 of 39 It is repeatedly submitted that these contradictions cast a serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution case and the entire case can safely be discarded on the basis of these contradictions.
However, learned Addl. PP has argued that in the facts of the case, these contradictions are natural, more so, when the evidence of the witness was recorded after long time.
48. I have carefully considered the submissions about contradictions in the light of the deposition of the witnesses. PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa and PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar are residents of West Bengal and are in the business of selling Momos. They are not highly educated and are rustic fellows. It in their deposition as well as in the deposition of accused also, who has examined himself as DW 1, it has come on record that all of them were taking drinks for a long time on the date of incident. When people take drinks, more so for a long time, as these persons were taking, some disorientation of the senses is quite natural and people lose sense of time and space. This is aggravated by a serious incident like murder. Moreover, their evidence was recorded after twothree years of the incident. In such a situation, contradictions are quite natural and their impact cannot be exaggerated to the level that these minor variations can be used to discard a good prosecution case. Variations regarding mode of transport of injured to the hospital in the dead of night in the cold month of December, place of arrest of the accused when the place of incident as well as ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 22 of 39 residence of the accused are closedby and the room being locked are quite minor. As far as variation in time is concerned, the same is also of no consequence as the incident took place in the dead of night and all the actors involved in the incident were taking drinks since 06:0007:00 PM before the incident. As far as recovery of knife is concerned, PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa is not categorical whether the knife was taken away by the accused or not. However, PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar is categorical in his deposition that Regan Pradhan ran away from the room with knife. PW 3 ASI Shiv Kumar and PW 23A Inspector Anil Sharma have also categorically deposed that the knife was recovered from the possession of accused Regan Pradhan. PW 26 Dr. Hemant Kumar has also deposed that the injuries suffered by the deceased could have been caused by the knife, Ex P3/3. Thus, this contradiction is also of no significance.
In an authority reported as State of U.P. Vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, while dealing with the question of contradictions, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 30 as under:
"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 23 of 39 and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence."
49. In the instant case the defence has raised many points regarding the contradictions, which are of no consequence and the investigating officer is not obliged to anticipate all such frivolous defences. In an authority reported as V. K. Mishra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588, while dealing with such frivolous defences, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 38 as under:
"The investigating officer is not obliged to anticipate all possible defences and investigate in that angle. In any event, any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution. Interest of justice demands that such acts or omission of the investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the accused or otherwise it would amount to placing a premium upon such omissions."
50. Thus, in view of the evidence on record and the law ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 24 of 39 quoted above, the contradictions pointed out by learned defence counsel are of no consequence and are quite natural in any case of such nature.
Whether the act of the accused falls in Part I or II of 304 IPC?
51. In the instant case, the accused stands charged under Section 304, Part I IPC. Now the question is: Whether in view of the factual situation as noted above, the instant case falls under Part I or Part II of 304 IPC. Learned Addl. PP has left the matter to the discretion of the Court, while learned defence counsel has argued that the accused is entitled to acquittal and in the alternative if he is held guilty, he may be dealt with under Part II of Section 304 IPC. The incident, as noted above, took place all of a sudden when deceased Arun Thapa, accused Regan Pradhan, PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa, PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar and one Sanju were taking drinks. There were hot arguments between accused Arun Thapa and Regan Pradhan, when Regan Pradhan started talking about exgirlfriend of Arun Thapa. In this altercation, accused Regan Pradhan picked up a knife, lying nearby, and stabbed Arun Thapa in his chest. For ready reference, it is useful to extract the relevant part of the testimony of PW 9 Sh. Umesh Thapa, which reads as under:
".......Accused Reegan was discussing about the Ex girl friend of Arun. Some hot words were exchanged between Arun and accused Reegan.
___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 25 of 39 Arun did not like the discussion about his Ex girl friend. In the meantime, during the hot discussion between accused Reegan and Arun, accused Reegan picked up a vegetable knife from the room and hit upon Arun on his chest. After hitting by a knife, accused Reegan fled away from the spot. Blood oozed out from the chest of Arun......."
52. On the same line is the deposition of PW 15 Sh. Vishal Kumar.
53. These two witnesses have deposed that the incident took place all of a sudden, when the accused made some comments about the exgirlfriend of the deceased. The knife was already lying over there. There was a single blow administered by the accused to the deceased. The postmortem report, Ex PW 4/A, also indicates a single injury. The accused did not repeat the attack. On seeing the blood, he also ran away from the spot. It needs no repetition that the deceased and the accused were drunk at the time of incident and were having cordial relations.
54. Now the question is: Whether the act of the accused falls under Part I or Part II of 304 IPC? Let me take note of the law on the point.
Legal Provisions and Case Law
55. Section 299 IPC defines "culpable homicide" as under:
___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 26 of 39 "Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
Section 300 IPC defines "murder" as under:
"Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom harm is caused, or Thirdly. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such an act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
.......................................................................... .......................................................................... Exception 4. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heart of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 27 of 39 having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Section 304 IPC defines punishment for "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" as under:
"Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
56. In an authority reported as Afrahim Sheikh and others Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1964 SC 1263, while dealing with the ingredients of Section 304 IPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 5 as under:
".......Section 304 does not define culpable homicide not amounting to murder. That definition is to be found in Section 299, which provides:
"Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 28 of 39 intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
Culpable homicide is the causing of the death of a person in three ways: (1) with the intention of causing death, (2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and (3) with the knowledge that the offence is likely by such act to cause death. The offence of culpable homicide becomes murder when four circumstances exist. They are mentioned in Section 300. A number of exceptions are however included, and those exceptions show extenuating circumstances on strict proof of which the offence is again brought down to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The causing of the death of a person by doing an act accompanied by intention in the two ways described in Section 299 or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death also described there is thus distinguished from cases of deaths resulting from accident or rash and negligent act and those cases where death may result but the offence is of causing hurt either simple or grievous......."
It was further observed in paragraph 10 as under:
"....Section 304 is in two parts; and first part is concerned with culpable homicide committed with two types of intention and the second part with culpable homicide committed with a particular knowledge....."
___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 29 of 39
57. Similarly, in a case reported as K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala, (1999) SCC 309, while dealing with the case of single blow of knife and application of Section 304II IPC to those facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 6 as under:
".......Thus it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had given one blow but the blow no doubt was quite severe, as a result of which the intestines had protruded out. It is however crystal clear that the appellant had no animosity against the deceased and he was involved because of the altercations with PW 1. The scenario in which the appellant has been stated by the eyewitnesses to have given one blow on the deceased, it is difficult for us to hold that he gave the blow in question either with the intention of causing murder of the deceased or he can have said to have the requisite knowledge that death would otherwise be the inevitable result. In such a situation, even on accepting the prosecution case, we hold that the accused did not commit the offence under Section 302 but under Part II of Section 304 IPC. We, accordingly, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and instead, convict him under Section 304 Part II. The incident is of the year 1985 and more than 13 years have elapsed. The accused is on bail pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 621992. Mr Lalit, appearing for the accused appellant stated that he has already undergone sentence of about four years. In such ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 30 of 39 circumstances, for his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, we sentence him to the period already undergone......."
58. Similarly, while dealing with the question as to when a case falls under Section 304 IPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court in an authority reported as Harendra Nath Mandal Vs. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 435, observed in paragraph 6 as under:
"Section 304 does not create an offence but provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In view of Section 299 of the Penal Code, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. In view of Section 300 of the Penal Code, except in cases covered by the five exceptions mentioned therein culpable homicide is murder. It is well known that if a death is caused and the case is covered by any one of the five exceptions of Section 300 then such culpable homicide shall not amount to murder. Section 304 provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and draws a distinction in the penalty to be inflicted in cases covered by one of the five exceptions, where an intention to kill is present and where there is only knowledge that death will be a likely result, but intention to cause death or such bodily injury which is likely to cause death is absent. To put it ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 31 of 39 otherwise if the act of the accused falls within any of the clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Section 300 but is covered by any of the five exceptions it will be punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, the act comes under clause (4) of Section 300 i.e. the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death but without any intention to cause death and is covered by any of the exceptions, it will be punishable under the second part. The first part of Section 304 applies where there is guilty intention whereas the second part applies where there is guilty knowledge. But before an accused is held guilty and punished under first part or second part of Section 304, a death must have been caused by him under any of the circumstances mentioned in the five exceptions to Section 300, which include death caused while deprived of power of selfcontrol under grave and sudden provocation, while exercising in good faith the right of private defence of person or property, and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation. So far the present case is concerned, when death itself had not been caused, there was no occasion for convicting the appellant under Section 304 of the Penal Code."
59. Furthermore, in one more authority reported as Narayan s/o Meghraj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 SCC OnLine MP 172, Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, while dealing with a case in which single blow of knife was administered ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 32 of 39 by the accused to the deceased on account of previous enmity and the application of Section 304II IPC to those facts, observed in paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 as under:
"10. The question is what offence was committed by the appellant. It is often glibly argued that since the accused had caused but a single injury, he cannot be held guilty of murder. The argument may in some cases hit upon correctly. But it is wrong to place the argument on a pedestal of law or even to accept it as a rule of thumb. The true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in clauses (1) to (4) of section 300, Inidan Penal Code, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate, A is bound hand and foot. B comes and placing his revolver against the head of A, shoots A in his head killing him instantaneously. Here there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of B in shooting A was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within clause (1) of section 300, Indian Penal Code.
Taking another instance, B sneaks into the bed room of his enemy A while the latter is asleep in his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of A, B forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of A and runs away. A dies shortly thereafter. The injury to A was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
There may be no difficulty in holding that B ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 33 of 39 intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of B within clause 3rdly of section 300, Indian Penal Code and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused.
11. It may be mentioned that even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within clauses (1) to (4) of section 300, Indian Penal Code, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part I of section 304, Indian Penal Code if the case of the accused is such as to fall within clauses (1) to (3) of section 300, Indian Penal Code. It would be offence under Part II of section 304 if the case is such as to as to fall within clause (4) of section 300, Indian Penal Code. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of section 299, Indian Penal Code, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of section 300, Indian Penal Code. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Indian Penal Code. It would be an offence under part I of that section, if the case fell within 2nd part of section 299, while it would be an offence ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 34 of 39 under part II of section 304 if the case fell within 3rd part of section 299, Indian Penal Code.
.......................................................................... ..........................................................................
13. Coming back to the present case, as already found by us, the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant was not anticipated and had taken place suddenly upon their chance meeting. The immediate cause of the quarrel could not be known. The deceased was not standing away and steady during the quarrel. On the other hand, grappling was taking place between the appellant and the deceased reasonably raising the possibility that the appellant could not have aimed his knife at a particular part of the body of the deceased, namely, the left side of his chest where the blow landed. The appellant did not persist in the assault. He had no particular motive to kill the deceased. The chest injury was undoubtedly sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. But in the above circumstances it cannot be held with any degree of certainty that the appellant intended to inflict that particular injury. The knife blow was undoubtedly dealt forcibly causing a penetrating wound inside the heart. As such, the appellant can safely be credited with the knowledge that he was likely by the said blow to cause death, attracting 3rd part of section 299, Indian Penal Code, thereby making the act of the appellant punishable under Part II of section 304, Indian Penal Code. The offence committed by the appellant ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 35 of 39 was not one under section 302, Indian Penal Code, but one under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code."
60. The gist of the case law is that when an accused does an act with the knowledge that he is likely to cause death, then the act would not amount to murder, if it falls within any of the exceptions. The facts of the instant case clearly show that the accused had no intention to kill the deceased, as the incident took place all of a sudden and only single blow of knife was given to the deceased. However, when he attacked the injured with a knife and stabbed him in the chest, he can safely be attributed the knowledge that he was doing an act which was likely to cause death. Thus, his act is covered by Clause 4 of Section 300 and Exception 4 to it. Such an act does not fall in the first part of Section 304 IPC, but falls in the second part.
61. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Arun Thapa. Accordingly, I hold him guilty under Section 304 IPC Part II.
62. Let him be heard on the point of sentence.
63. I have heard learned Addl. PP and learned defence counsel on the point of sentence.
64. It is submitted by learned Addl. PP that the accused is in ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 36 of 39 custody since 30.12.2013. In view of the incarceration of the accused for more than five years and the fact that the deceased and the accused were drunk at the time of the incident, he has left the matter to the discretion of the Court.
65. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned defence counsel that the convict is in custody since the date of the incident and belongs to a poor family. It is submitted that a lenient view may kindly be taken and he may be sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by him.
66. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the bar on the point of sentence.
67. While dealing with the question of sentence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in an authority reported as Dr. Jacob George Vs. State of Kerala, (1994) 3 SCC 430, observed in paragraphs 17 to 20 as under:
"17......The purpose which punishment achieves or is required to achieve are four in number. First, retribution: i.e. taking of eye for eye or tooth for tooth. The object behind this is to protect the society from the depredations of dangerous persons; and so, if somebody takes an eye of another, his eye is taken in vengeance. This form of protection may not receive general approval of the society in our present state of education and understanding of human psychology. In any case, so far as the matter at hand is concerned, retribution cannot have full play, because the sentence ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 37 of 39 provided by Section 314 is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years where the miscarriage has been caused with the consent of the woman as is the case at hand. So death penalty is not provided. The retributive part of sentencing object is adequately taken care of by the adverse effect which the conviction would have on the practice of the appellant.
18. The other purpose of sentence is preventive. We are sure that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone would be an eyeopener to the appellant and he would definitely not repeat the illegal act of the type at hand.
19. Deterrence is another object which punishment is required to achieve. Incarceration of about two months undergone by the appellant and upholding of his conviction by us which is likely to affect the practice adversely, would or should deter others to desist them from indulging in an illegal act like the one at hand.
20. Reformation is also an expected outcome of undergoing sentence. We do think that two months' sojourn of the appellant behind the iron bars and stone walls must have brought home to him the need of his changing the type of practice he had been doing as a homeopath. The reformative aspect of punishment has achieved its purpose, according to us, by keeping the appellant inside the prison boundaries for about two months having enabled him to know during this period the trauma which one suffers in jail, and so the ___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 38 of 39 appellant is expected to take care to see that in future he does not indulge in such an act which would find him in prison."
(All underlinings by me for supplying emphasis).
68. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased and the accused were drunk at the time of incident. The convict is in the business of selling Momos and belongs to a lower strata of society. He is in custody since 30.12.2013. Considering these facts, I am inclined to take a lenient view and sentence him to the imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.
69. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost immediately.
70. Case property is forfeited to the State to be disposed of after the time of appeal is over.
71. The convict be set at liberty at once, if not required to be detained in any other case.
72. As per the provisions of Section 437A CrPC, convict is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ to appear before Hon'ble Appellate Court, as and when he receives notice of appeal.
73. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (O. P. Saini)
today on 19.01.2019 Addl. Sessions Judge/
Spl. Judge (CBI04)
New Delhi
___________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Regan Pradhan FIR No. 609/2013, PS: Vasant Vihar Page 39 of 39