Delhi District Court
) Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Present ... vs The State Of on 29 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS DEEPALI SHARMA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 04: EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLET010013812012
SC No. 1280/2016
FIR No. 09/2012
U/s 304 IPC
P.S. Mandawali
In the matter of :
State
versus
Ajay Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Rajendra Mehto,
R/o H.No. 39, Gali No. 2,
Sewa Sadan Block,
Mandawali, Delhi92.
Date of Institution : 09.09.2014
Date of reserving Judgment : 19.11.2022
Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2022
Appearance
For the State : Shri Rakesh Mehta,
Additional Public
Prosecutor.
For accused : Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta,
Adv.
JUDGMENT
1) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 05.01.2012 an information was received at PS Mandawali at Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 1/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi 09.50 pm from J.P.N. Hospital that Horil Mehto s/o Dashrat Mehto, aged 35 years, r/o A39, Sewa Sadan Block, Mandawali, Delhi, was got admitted at JPN Hospital vide MLC No. 2441/2012 by his nephew Deeplal Mehto after a quarrel at his house. The information was recorded vide DD No. 79B Ex. PW1/D and the same was assigned to HC Pawan. HC Pawan alongwith Const. Kapil reached LNJP Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Horil Mehto. The SHO was informed telephonically and later SHO Insp. Mahesh Dholia and Insp. S.S.Chauhan reached at the hospital. HC Pawan handed over the MLC of injured to Insp. S.S.Chauhan. Two persons namely Ashok and Madhusudan also met the police at the hospital. IO/Insp. S.S.Chauhan made inquiries from them. Meanwhile, HC Pawan received information from the Duty Officer regarding death of injured Horil Mehto. The police alongwith Ashok and Madhusudhan went to LNJP Hospital where they came to know that the injured had been shifted to the mortuary. IO inquired about the incident from Ashok and recorded his statement.
2) In his statement Ex. PW5/A PW Ashok stated that he was a TSR driver. His friend Horil Mehto s/o Dashrath Nath Mehto, r/o 6/492, Gali No. 6, Trilok Puri, Delhi, native of Village Chainpur, PS Karza, Distt. Muzafarpur, Bihar, was also a TSR driver. His another friend Madhusudan s/o Late Sh. Sudesh Singh, was also a TSR driver. Like everyday all three of them brought their TSR to hand over the TSR to night shift TSR drivers at Shani Mandir, near Railway Line, Patparganj Road, Mandawali underpass, on 05.01.2012 at about 07.00 pm and Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 2/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi handed over their TSRs to the night shift drivers. Thereafter, the three of them started drinking in a TSR bearing no. DL1RK 0834 which was standing nearby. At about 08.30 pm the driver of the said TSR namely Ajay Kumar s/o Late Rajender Mehto r/o 39, Gali No. 2, Sewa Sadan Block, Main Road, Mandawali, Delhi, native of Bihar, came there and told them how could they dare to sit in his TSR and drink there. At that they told him that what damage was caused to the TSR "TSR Ka Kya Bigad Gaya"
and all three of them climbed down the TSR. However, despite that Ajay Kumar told them as to why they sat down in his TSR. At which Horil Mehto told him that if the TSR was of his father "TSR Tumahre Baap Ka Hai" and a scuffle ensued between Horil Mehto and Ajay Kumar and they started quarreling. During the said quarrel, Ajay Kumar gave a hard push to Horil Mehto due to which Horil Mehto fell down on the railway line underpass footpath below the road and immediately became unconscious. At that PW Ashok alongwith his companion Madhusudhan took Horil Mehto in a TSR to Walia Nursing Home, Laxmi Nagar, where the doctor told them to immediately take the patient to a good hospital. They took him without any treatment in a TSR to JPN Hospital for his treatment. PW Ashok also informed about the incident to nephew of Horil Mehto namely Deeplal telephonically. Deeplal Mehto met them outside JPN Hospital where they got Horil Mehto admitted for his treatment, where Horil Mehto expired during his treatment due to wound on his head. PW Ashok stated that Ajay Kumar was to be blamed for the death of Horil Mehto and necessary action should be taken against him.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 3/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
3) On the basis of the above statement given by the complainant Ashok Ex. PW5/A, FIR bearing no. 09/2012 was registered u/s 304 IPC vide Ex. PW1/A on 06.01.2012.
4) IO conducted the necessary investigation and went to the spot alongwith PW Ashok and Madhusudan where he prepared the site plan at the instance of Ashok Kumar vide Ex.
PW15/B. Crime Team was called and photographs were taken. Thereafter, accused was arrested from his house vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A, personal search memo Ex. PW2/B. He was got medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW15/C. IO got conducted postmortem of the body of deceased Horil Mehto vide PM Report Ex. PW14/A and obtained subsequent opinion from the doctor regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased vide Ex. PW14/B. The dead body was handed over to the son and brotherinlaw of the deceased vide Ex. PW3/A. TSR bearing no. DL1RK0834 was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. The statement of eye witness Ashok Kumar was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. M.M. IO also got prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW10/A. IO recorded the statements of witnesses and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Ajay Kumar u/s 304 IPC.
5) Cognizance of the offence u/s 304 IPC was taken by the Ld. M.M. vide order dated 17.11.2012. A complaint case regarding the same incident was filed by the complainant i.e. wife of the deceased alleging that offences u/s 302/341/506 IPC Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 4/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi were made out against the accused. Pre summoning evidence was led and vide order dated 26.08.2014 Ld. M.M. held that there was no ground for summoning the accused u/s 302 IPC. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the matter was committed to the Sessions Court vide order dated 26.08.2014 for 09.09.2014.
Charge :
6) Charge was framed against accused Ajay Kumar u/s 304 IPC. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence :
7) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses.
(i) PW1 HC Rajvir Singh - Duty Officer, who registered the FIR Ex. PW1/A. He also recorded DD No. 6A Ex.
PW1/C upon information received at 1.05 am on 06.01.2012 from LNJP Hospital regarding death of Horil Mehto. He informed HC Pawan Kumar about the same, who was already attending DD No. 79B Ex. PW1/D.
(ii) PW2 HC Pawan Kumar, who received DD No. 79B on 05.01.2012 at about 09.30 pm regarding admission of injured Horil Mehto at LNJP Hospital. He reached LNJP Hospital alongwith Const. Kapil and obtained MLC of Horil Mehto. He informed the SHO telephonically. SHO alongwith ATO/Insp. Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 5/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi S.S.Chauhan reached the hospital. He handed over the MLC of inured to them. They met PW Ashok Kumar and Madhusudan at the hospital. They made inquiries from them and thereafter they all went to the spot. While Insp. S.S..Chauhan was recording the statement of PW Ashok Kumar, information was received from the Duty Officer, regarding the death of injured Hospital Mehto. Insp. S.S.Chauhan made an endorsement on the statement of PW Ashok Kumar and prepared a rukka and handed it over to PW2 for taking it to Police Station for registration of the FIR, which was registered vide Ex. PW1/A. FIR alongwith rukka was handed over by PW2 to Insp. S.S.Chauhan at the spot. Crime Team was also present there. Photographs of the scene of crime were taken and the scene of crime was inspected by Incharge Crime Team. Thereafter, the accused was arrested at the instance of PW Ashok Kumar from his house vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A. He identified accused Ajay Kumar in court.
(iii) PW3 Madhusudan - friend of the deceased. He deposed that he used to run a TSR. On 05.01.2012 at about 08.30 pm PW3 alongwith Ashok Kumar and Horil Mehto were consuming liquor in a TSR of accused Ajay Kumar. The TSR was parked near under the railway underpass, Shanti Mandir, Mandawali. They used to drink there in a routine manner. PW3, Ashok Kumar and Horil Mehto used to drive the TSR in morning shift from 07.00 am to 08.00 pm and accused Ajay used to drive the TSR in the night shift from 08.0008.30 pm to 06.00 am. While they were consuming liquor in the TSR of accused Ajay Kumar, he came there and told them how dare they sit in his TSR Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 6/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi and drink "Tumhari Himmat Kaisey Hui Ki Hamare TSR Me Beth Kar Sharab Pi Rahe Ho". At this PW3, Asok Kumar and Horil Mehto got down from his TSR and told accused Ajay Kumar what went wrong with his TSR "Tumhare TSR Ka Kaya Bigad Gaya". Accused Ajay Kumar again told "Nahi. Tumahra Himmat Kaise Hua Mere TSR Me Sharab Pine Ka". Horil Mehto told accused Ajay Kumar if the TSR belonged to his father "Tumhare Baap Ka Gadi Hai?". Thereafter accused Ajay Mehto started quarreling with Horil Mehto. They tried to intervene in the quarrel. During the quarrel accused Ajay Kumar pushed Horil Mehto due to which Horil Mehto fell on the pavement (footpath) of railway underpass and became unconscious. Thereafter accused Ajay Kumar left the spot.
PW3 further deposed that he alongwith PW Ashok Kumar took Horil Mehto to Walia Nursing Home, Laxmi Nagar, in a TSR. The doctors at Walia Nursing Home advised them to take Horil Mehto to some other hospital as his condition was serious. Thereafter they took Horil Mehto to LNJP Hospital. Ashok Kumar also made a call to Deep Lal Mehto (nephew of Horil Mehto) and informed him regarding the incident. Deep Lal Mehto reached at LNJP Hospital prior to admission of Horil Mehto and thereafter, Horil Mehto was admitted in the hospital.
Police officials met them at LNJP Hospital. Later he came to know that Horil Mehto had expired. After the postmortem dead body of Horil Mehto was received by his son and relative vide receipt Ex. PW3/A. He stated that TSR No. Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 7/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi DL1RK0834 was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B.
(iv) PW4 Jai Prakash Gupta deposed that in the year 2012 he was having three TSRs, which he used to give on rent. He did not remember the date but in September 2012, at about 08.30 pm, his auto was out of order and he was standing at auto workshop at Urja Vihar, Mandawali. Vijay, brother of Ajay, was also standing with him at the workshop. Vijay used to drive his auto. They heard the noise from auto stand situated near the workshop, where the change of shift of drivers used to take place. He and Vijay went there and saw that accused Ajay and Ashok were quarreling with each other. PW4 caught Ashok Kumar with hands and persuaded him not to quarrel. At that time, Ajay Kumar and Horil Mehto were standing behind his back. Suddenly, somebody shouted that Horil Mehto had fallen down. He left Ashok and turned behind and found Horil Mehto lying on the footpath. He was not speaking anything and there was no movement in his body. Madhusudan made Horil Mehto sit and asked him about his wellbeing but he did not respond. Accused Ajay left the spot. Ashok and Madhusudan took Horil Mehto to hospital. Later on police recorded his statement in this case.
(v) PW5 Ashok Kumar deposed that he was an auto driver. He knew the deceased Horil Mehto as he was also an auto driver. He also knew Madhusudan, who was also a TSR driver. On 06.01.2012, at about 07.0007.30 pm, he, Horil Mehto and Madhusudan came on their TSRs at railway crossing, Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 8/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Patparganj to handover the TSRs to the drivers of the night shift. After handing over the autos, all three of them started taking liquor while sitting in a TSR parked there. After sometime, accused Ajay, whom PW5 correctly identified in court, came there and questioned them as to how they dared to take liquor in his TSR. They came down from the TSR and the accused started manhandling them. In the said quarrel, accused pushed Horil Mehto due to which he fell down on the road on the underpass and he suffered injuries and became unconscious. He and Madhusudan rushed Horil Mehto in a TSR to Walia Nursing Home, Laxmi Nagar, however, after examining, the doctor told them to take him to some better hospital. They took Horil Mehto to JPN Hospital and gave information of the incident to Deep Lal, nephew of Horil Mehto. Deep Lal was also a TSR driver. Deep Lal Mehto met them outside the gate of JPN Hospital and Horil Mehto was got admitted there. The doctor informed that Horil Mehto had suffered brain haemorrhage and was to be operated but before his operation, he expired. Police met him in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW5/A. He had shown the place of occurrence to the police and site plan was prepared at his pointing out. He took the police to the house of the accused at A39, Sewa Sadan, Gali No. 2, Mandawali, from where the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/B. The body of Horil Mehto was identified by the son of the deceased vide identification memo Ex. PW5/B. After postmortem the body was handed over to the son of the deceased Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 9/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi vide memo Ex. PW3/A. His statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW5/C before the Magistrate.
At that stage, Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State put some leading question to the witness and PW5 affirmed that the incident occurred on 05.01.2012, at about 08.30 pm. He also affirmed that the TSR number was DL1RK0834 and the accused had said "Tumhari Mere TSR Main Baithkar Sharaab Peene Ki Himmat Kaise Ho Gayi" and at that they said "TSR Ka Kya Bigad Gaya". He also affirmed that when they got down, accused Ajay Kumar again said "Tum Log Mere TSR Main Kyun Baithe" and Horil Mehto said "Yeh TSR Tumhare Baap Ka Hai?"
He also affirmed that Raghubir Mehto, brotherinlaw of Horil Mehto, identified body of Horil Mehto on 06.01.2012 vide identification memo Ex. PW5/D.
(vi) PW6 Deep Lal Mehto deposed that since 2010 he had been running TSR on hire basis in Delhi and he was residing at A39, Seva Sadan Block, Gali No. 2, Mandawali, Delhi on rent, though he was a permanent resident of Village Rotania, PS Karza, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. He did not know the date and month of incident but it was 2012 and he was driving TSR. At about 08.00 pm his known Ashok, who was also TSR driver, informed him telephonically that his maternal uncle Horil Mehto got injured in a quarrel and he was being taken to the LNJP Hospital and PW6 was also asked to come there and he reached there at about 09.00 pm. In the meantime, Ashok Kumar and Madhusudan brought his maternal uncle Horil Mehto to the Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 10/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi hospital, who was admitted there and his address was mentioned on the MLC wherein the alleged history was given as "Gharelu Jhagra" which was inadvertently mentioned and the real facts were told by eye witness Ashok Kumar. He had seen his maternal uncle Horil Mehto, who was in injured condition and police had come to the hospital and he was interrogated and his statement was also recorded. Accused Ajay Kumar, who was a TSR driver, was correctly identified by PW6.
(vii) PW7 Mukesh Singh deposed that he is owner of TSR No. DL1RK0834 (Ex. P1) and about one month prior to incident he had given the said TSR to accused Ajay, whom he correctly identified before the court, on hire basis. He received a telephone call from his brother Vinod that the said TSR had been taken by the police. He came to know that some persons were having liquor in his TSR at near Shani Mandir, Mandwali, Delhi.
He had taken his TSR on superdari vide superdaginama Ex PW7/A. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State wherein he affirmed that his TSR no. was DLIRK 0834 and not 0634 and he had given the same to accused Ajay on hire basis. The drivers used to come near Shani Mandir, Urja Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi for change of duty. He affirmed that on 05.01.2012 the said TSR was to be taken for the night duty by accused Ajay s/o Rajender Mehto and later on he came to know that a quarrel had taken place and one person was killed.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 11/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
(viii) PW8 Akhilesh Kumar, son of deceased Horil Mehto. He deposed that in the evening of 05.01.2012 he was informed by his cousin Deep Lal, s/o his Bua, that Ajay Kumar has hit a stone on the head of his father at Mandawali, Taxi Stand. He alongwith his mother and his brotherinlaw Surender went at Mandawali Taxi Stand. His father Horil Mehto was lying on the road and was bleeding from head but was conscious. His father (deceased) had informed that accused Ajay Kumar had hit stone on his head with a view to kill him. Accused Ajay, whom he correctly identified before the court, was also present at the spot. They took his father Horil Mehto to LNJP Hospital and he died in the hospital. He identified dead body of his father vide memo Ex. PW5/B. After postmortem, the body was handed over to him vide memo Ex. PW3/A.
(ix) PW9 Raghubir Mehto was brotherinlaw of deceased Horil Mehto, who identified dead body of Horil Mehto in the hospital vide memo Ex. PW5/D and after postmortem dead body was handed over to them.
(x) PW10 Insp. Mukesh Jain Kumar Jain, the draftsman, who deposed that on 22.02.2012 at the request of IO/Insp. S.S.Chauhan, he alongwith IO went to the spot i.e. Service Road, near Power House, Auto Rickshaw Stand, Mandawali, Delhi, where he inspected he spot, took measurements, prepared rough notes and on the basis of same he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW10/A. Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 12/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
(xi) PW11 Dr. Kapil - proved MLC no 2441 prepared by Dr. Ubaid, Junior Resident, whose signature and handwriting he identified and proved MLC as Ex PW11/A.
(xii) PW12 ASI Manoj was member of Crime Mobile Team and he proved the three photographs of scene of crime Ex. PW12/A1 to A3. He proved negatives of photographs as Ex. PW12/B1 to B3.
(xiii) PW13 Ct. Ajay Chaudhary deposed that on 05.01.2012 he was posted as Duty Constable at LNJP Hospital and on that day at about 09.45 pm Horil Mehto was admitted in hospital by Deep Lal Mehto and patient was examined vide MLC No. 2441/12. In the night injured has expired and he informed about his death at PS Mandawali.
(xiv) PW14 Dr. Kulbhushan Prasad, Asstt. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, conducted postmortem on dead body of deceased Horil Mehto vide postmortem report no. 21/2012 Ex. PW14/A. He also proved subsequent opinion given by him regarding cause of death which was cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to head. All injuries was antemortem in nature and caused by blunt force trauma. He proved his opinion as Ex. PW14/B.
(xv) PW15 Retd. Insp. S.S.Chauhan was IO of the case.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 13/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
8) Ld. Counsel for the accused did not dispute the genuineness of the record of proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by Ms. Vandana Jain, Ld. M.M., without admitting contents of the same. Accordingly proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was exhibited as Ex. PW5/C. Statement of accused :
9) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in this case. He stated that on the alleged day of incident, he saw deceased Horil Mehto was under great intoxication and was talking to Ashok Kumar and Madhusudan. Horil Mehto was not able to stand properly. They were discussing some matter while standing on the footpath.
Suddenly deceased slipped from the footpath and fell down on the road and received injuries. He saw this incident from some distance. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by Deep Lal Mehto, nephew of the deceased, as he is an auto driver by profession and having rivalry towards him. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Arguments :
10) It is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated that in their crossexamination PW3 Madhusudan and PW5 Ashok Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 14/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Kumar have categorically stated that they had not seen the accused pushing Horil Mehto/had seen Horil Mehto falling down and hence, there is no eye witness of the incident, who had seen the accused allegedly pushing the deceased due to which he fell down. It is stated that there is nothing on record to corroborate the fact that PW3 Madhusudan, PW5 Ashok Kumar and Horil Mehto were consuming liquor in the TSR of the accused.
Though the TSR was seized by the IO, however, nothing has been brought on record to show that liquor was being consumed in the said TSR. No examination of the TSR was done. Bottle/s of liquor have not been recovered. It is stated that he has been falsely implicated by Deep Lal Mehto, nephew of the deceased, who had rivalry towards the accused. It is stated that even in the MLC it is not mentioned that the accused had fallen down being pushed by the accused and it merely mentions a history of a domestic quarrel. It is accordingly stated that in absence of any material on record, the accused is liable to be acquitted of the offence he is charged with.
11) On the other hand, it is contended by ld. Addl. PP for the State that the accused had pushed the deceased due to which he fell on the pavement of railway line underpass as deposed by eye witnesses PW3 and PW5. It is stated that both PW3 and PW5 were crossexamined by the accused after a gap of few months after recording of their examinationinchief and therefore, they did not depose on the expected lines in their crossexamination being won over by the accused during the intervening period. It is stated that the accused had requisite Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 15/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi intent and knowledge as envisaged u/s 304 IPC and therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 304 IPC.
Testimonies of material public witnesses:
12) In his examinationinchief as discussed hereinabove PW3 Madhusudan has specifically deposed that when he alongwith Ashok Kumar and Horil Mehto were consuming liquor in the TSR of accused Ajay Kumar, he came there and started quarreling with them as to why they were drinking in his TSR.
They told accused Ajay Kumar what went wrong with his TSR "Tumhare TSR Ka Kaya Bigad Gaya". Accused Ajay Kumar again told "Nahi. Tumahra Himmat Kaise Hua Mere TSR Me Sharab Pine Ka". Horil Mehto told accused Ajay Kumar if the TSR belonged to his father "Tumhare Baap Ka Gadi Hai?". Thereafter accused Ajay Mehto started quarreling with Horil Mehto. They (PW3 and PW5) tried to intervene in the quarrel. During the quarrel accused Ajay Kumar pushed Horil Mehto due to which Horil Mehto fell on the pavement (footpath) of railway underpass and became unconscious. Thereafter accused Ajay Kumar left the spot.
13) In his testimony PW4 Jai Prakash Gupta also deposed that he saw accused Ajay quarreling with PW Ashok. He caught Ashok Kumar and persuaded him not to quarrel. At that time, Ajay Kumar and Horil Mehto were standing behind his back. Somebody shouted that Horil Mehto had fallen down. He saw Horil Mehto lying on the footpath when he turned behind. Thereafter accused Ajay left the spot. Hence, PW4 Jai Prakash Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 16/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Gupta also corroborated the fact that a quarrel took place and accused Ajay Kumar and Horil Mehto were present at the spot, though he did not see how deceased Horil Mehto fell down on the pavement.
14) PW3 Madhusudan also deposed that the number of the TSR in issue was DL1RK0834. Subsequently in his cross examination he deposed that the said TSR was of Horil Mehto. Similarly PW5 in his examinationinchief deposed that the registration no. of TSR in issue was DL1RK0834.
15) PW7 deposed that he was the owner of the TSR and he gave the same to accused Ajay on hire basis. The said TSR bearing registration No. DL1RK0834 was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. The said TSR was released to PW7 by executing a superdarinama Ex. PW7/A. Hence, the fact that accused Ajay was driving the TSR in issue on the date of incident is proved by the testimony of PW7, who was the owner of the said TSR. The statement of PW3 in his crossexamination that Horil Mehto was driving the said TSR on the date of incident is without any merit in view of his examinationinchief and statement of PW7 in this regard.
16) Thus, PW3 made specific allegations in his examinationinchief that during the quarrel accused Ajay Kumar pushed Horil Mehto due to which he fell on the pavement of Railway underpass and became unconscious.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 17/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
17) Similarly in his examinationinchief PW5 Ashok Kumar, who was also an eye witness of the incident, deposed that during the quarrel accused Ajay Kumar pushed Horil Mehto due to which he fell down on the road on the underpass due to which he suffered injuries and became unconscious.
18) Accordingly, in their examinationsinchief both PW3 and PW5 deposed regarding the allegations against accused Ajay. However, in his crossexamination dated 18.10.2016, PW3 Madhusudan deposed that he had not seen accused Ajay Kumar pushing Horil Mehto but he only saw Horil Mehto falling down. He deposed that he was taken to the police station where papers were prepared and he had signed whatever papers he was told to sign by the IO.
19) Following court question was put to PW3 during his crossexamination and he answered as follows :
"Court question : In your testimony dated 02.05.2015 on oath, you stated that during the quarrel, accused Ajay Kumar pushed Horil Mehto due to which Horil Mehto fell on the pavement of railway underpass and became unconscious but today in cross examination, you stated "I had not seen accused Ajay Kumar pushing Horil Mehto but only saw Horil Mehto falling down", which of the two statements made by you is correct?
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 18/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi Ans. I had not seen Ajay pushing and therefore the statement made today is correct. However, one 02.05.2015, I was tutored outside by Inspector Chauhan to give such statement after reading out the same from the FIR."
20) PW5 Ashok Kumar in his crossexamination dated 18.10.2016 deposed that accused Ajay talked with him and Madhusudan. Horil Mehto was standing behind them at that time. Horil Mehto was not in a position to talk as he was heavily drunk. Upon hearing the quarrel 24 public persons came there. They tried to pacify the quarrel. Horil Mehto was standing 2½ feet behind them. Accused Ajay did not talk with Horil Mehto. Quarrel took place for about 10 minutes. Accused Ajay had grappelled with PW5 and Madhusudan. PW5 saw that Horil Mehto had fallen down on the road. PW5 had not seen Ajay pushing Horil Mehto.
21) Following court question was put to PW5 and he answered as follows :
"Court Question : In your statement dated 16.08.2016, you deposed that during the quarrel, accused pushed Horil Mehto due to which he fell down on the road on the underpass and suffered injuries and became unconscious but today during cross examination, you stated that "Accused had grappled with me and Madhusudan and I saw Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 19/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi that Horil Mehto had fallen down on the road. I had not seen Ajay pushing Horil Mahto." The two statements made by you are contradictory. Which of the two statement is correct?
Ans. The statement today that I had not seen Ajay pushing Horil Mahto is correct statement. I named Ajay at the instance of the police."
22) Hence, both PW3 and PW5 in their cross examinations dated 18.10.2016, took a Uturn and deposed that they had not seen accused Ajay Kumar pushing Horil Mehto. While PW3 deposed that he had seen Horil Mehto falling down, PW5 in his crossexamination deposed that he saw that Horil Mehto had fallen down on the road and he had not seen Ajay pushing Horil Mehto. Both PW3 and PW5 stated that they had named accused Ajay at the instance of the police.
23) It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that in their crossexamination PW3 and PW5 have not supported the prosecution case and have deposed that they had named the accused Ajay at the instance of police and they had not seen accused Ajay pushing Horil Mehto. In this regard Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State has referred to the judgment of "Khujji v. State of M.P. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1859, to contend that where the crossexamination of a witness takes place after a considerable delay, the examinationinchief can be relied upon.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 20/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
24) In this context, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akil v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 125 is referred to wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court dismissed the appeal of the appellant / accused. In the said case, the accused was identified by the prosecution witness in his examinationin chief and the matter was adjourned and crossexamination was recorded after two months. At the stage of crossexamination, the said prosecution witness gave an opposite version as regards the identity of the appellant / accused and deposed that the appellant / accused was identified earlier at the instance of the police who tutored him to make such a statement. It was held that such identification made by the prosecution witness at the stage of examinationinchief could not be ignored. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also discussed the entire law on the point and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.
25) Similarly, in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2013) 12 SCC 519 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar issue as observed as follows:
"6. Undoubtedly, PW 1 and PW 2 supported the case of the prosecution but in the last resiled from the same. We have gone through their depositions and it is clear that in the earlier part of their evi dence, both the witnesses had clearly implicated all these accused. The FIR could not be lodged immedi ately after the incident, as there was no one in the family to support their cause. Smt Jaswant Kaur (PW 2) had to send a telegram to her husband and it is only after he reached their place, that FIR was lodged. The prosecutrix was examined on several dates within the period of two years and she had been consistent throughout, that rape had been com mitted upon her. However, her father died during the trial and it may be because of his death that both Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 21/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi the prosecutrix and her mother had resiled to a cer tain extent from the prosecution case. Naturally, when the protective shield of their family had with ered away, the prosecutrix and her mother could have come under immense pressure from the appel lants. The trial court itself has expressed its anguish as to how the accused had purposely delayed and dragged the examination of the prosecutrix and fi nally succeeded in their nefarious objective when the father of the prosecutrix died and the pros ecutrix resiled on the last date of her crossexami nation. The appellants belonged to a welltodo fam ily, while the prosecutrix came from the poorest strata of the society. Thus, a sudden change in their attitude is understandable.................. ...........9. It is a settled legal proposition that state ment of a hostile witness can also be examined to the extent that it supports the case of the prosecu tion. The trial court record reveals a very sorry state of affairs, inasmuch as no step had ever been taken by the prosecution or the investigating officer, to prevent the witnesses from turning hostile, as it is their solemn duty to ensure that the witnesses are examined in such a manner that their statement must be recorded, at the earliest, and they should be assured full protection.
10. There is nothing on record, not even a sugges tion by the appellants to the effect that the pros ecutrix had any motive or previous enmity with the appellants, to involve them in this case. Unfortu nately, the trial court went against the spirit of law, while dealing with such a sensitive case of rape of a student by her teachers, by recording the statement of the prosecutrix on five different dates. Thus, a reasonable inference can be drawn that defence had an opportunity to win her mother." (emphasis sup plied)
26) Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case took notice of the possibility of accused influencing the victim/witness during the period intervening between examina tioninchief and crossexamination and after considering the Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 22/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi aforesaid, the appeal filed by the accused persons / appellants was dismissed.
27) Similarly, in the present case, the examinationin chief of PW3 was recorded on 02.05.2015 and on 16.08.2016.
The examinationinchief of PW5 was recorded initially on 16.08.2016. In their examinationsinchief both PW3 and PW5 supported the prosecution version. The testimony of PW5 was consistent with his initial complaint given to the police Ex. PW5/A and his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Ld. M.M. vide Ex. PW5/C. Similarly PW3 also supported the prosecution version in his examinationinchief. The cross examination of PW3 and PW5 was deferred on 16.08.2016 at the request of ld. Defence counsel subject to cost of Rs. 1000/. Both PW3 and PW5 were crossexamined on 18.10.2016 on which date they did not support the prosecution version and stated that they had deposed in their examinationinchief at the instance of police.
28) PW3 and PW5 were not reexamined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, however, the contradiction regarding their statement in examinationinchief and their deposition at the stage of crossexamination was put to the witnesses by the court itself wherein they explained that their statement given in the crossexamination was correct and that they were tutored by the police at the stage of recording of their examinationinchief.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 23/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
29) It is pertinent to note that the statement of PW5 Ashok was also recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the Ld. M.M. Ex. PW5/C. No question was put to PW5 in his crossexamination as regards his statement made before the Ld. M.M. and he was not confronted with the same by the ld. Counsel for the accused. In his statement recorded by Ld. M.M. u/s 164 Cr.P.C. PW Ashok had stated on the lines of his examinationinchief recorded be fore the court and his initial complaint Ex. PW5/A. Accordingly, the assertions made by PW5 Ashok in his statement Ex. PW5/C remained uncontroverted. It is also noteworthy that the crossex amination of PW3 and PW5 was recorded on 18.10.2016 after 2 3 months of recording of their examinationinchief. In these cir cumstances, the possibility of the accused persons influencing the witnesses during the intervening period cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the examinationinchief of PW3 is also corroborated by examinationinchief of PW5 and there are no material contra dictions therein. Additionally, the initial statement of PW5 Ashok given to the police Ex. PW5/A and his statement recorded before the Ld. M.M. are also consistent with his examinationin chief. In these circumstances the contention of ld. Counsel for the accused that the examinationinchief of PW3 and PW5 cannot be relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the ac cused is without any substance.
30) It is further contended that PW8 Akhilesh Kumar, son of the deceased Horil Mehto, had deposed that when he reached the spot, his father was lying on the road and was bleed ing from his head but was conscious. He told him that Ajay Ku Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 24/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi mar hit a stone on his head with an intention to kill him. It is ac cordingly urged that the version of PW8 Akhilesh Kumar is in consistent with the version of PW3 and PW5 as given in their ex aminationinchief and thereby creates a cloud over the prosecu tion version and benefit of the same shall accrue to the accused. It is also urged that as per the MLC of deceased Horil Mehto, he was got admitted in the hospital by Deep Lal Mehto, nephew of the deceased, with a history of physical assault at home address at around 08.30 pm. It is also urged that in his testimony PW6 Deep Lal Mehto has stated that his address was written on the MLC of Horil Mehto and the alleged history was mentioned as 'Gharelu Jhagra' inadvertently. It is urged that the word 'Gharelu Jhagra' was not mentioned inadvertently and the ac cused has been roped in the present matter as the alleged history does not mention that the deceased Horil Mehto had suffered a fall due to being pushed by accused Ajay Kumar. It is accord ingly argued that in these circumstances the version of prosecu tion witnesses itself is not consistent with each other and there fore the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
31) Deceased Horil Mehto was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW11/A bearing no. 2441/2012. He was brought to the hospital by Deep Lal Mehto, nephew. It is pertinent to note that the said MLC does not mention a history of 'Gharelu Jhagra' as is stated by PW6 Deep Lal Mehto and PW6 has infact deposed that Ashok Kumar PW5 and Madhusudan PW3 brought his ma ternal uncle to the hospital, who was got admitted there. On his MLC the address of PW6 was written and the alleged history was Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 25/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi inadvertently written as 'Gharelu Jhagra' and the real facts were told to him by eye witness Ashok Kumar PW3. Hence, from the statement of PW6 it is evident that he was not present at the time of incident and he was informed telephonically that his maternal uncle Horil Mehto got injured in a quarrel and was being taken to LNJP Hospital. PW6 was also asked to come there and he reached at the hospital at about 09.00 pm. Hence, PW6 never claimed himself to be the eye witness to the incident and he in fact stated that the real facts were told to him by eye witness Ashok Kumar. Moreover, the word 'Gharelu Jhagra' is not men tioned on the MLC Ex. PW11/A and hence, not much can be de duced by mention of the said words in DD No. 79B Ex. PW1/D whereby only initial information was received from the hospital at the police station.
32) As regards testimony of PW8 Akhilesh Kumar, it is to be noted that he was not an eye witness to the incident and was purportedly told by the deceased that Ajay Kumar hit with a stone on his head. He also deposed that he was informed by his cousin Deep Lal that Ajay Kumar had hit a stone on the head of his father at Mandawali Taxi Stand. In his crossexamination he deposed that he did not tell the police that his father was con scious when he met him or that he informed the police that his fa ther was hit with a stone on his head by accused Ajay with a view to kill him. Much emphasis cannot be laid on the above said statement of PW8 Akhilesh as the said statement was based on the initial information received by him through PW6 Deep Lal Mehto, who himself deposed that real facts were told to him by Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 26/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi eye witness Ashok Kumar PW5. Infact a complaint case bearing CC No. 775/2012 was also filed by wife and son of deceased Ho ril Mehto alleging that Ajay Kumar had hit on the head of the de ceased with a stone and therefore accused Ajay Kumar is liable to be tried under section 302 IPC. Vide order dated 26.08.2014 Ld. M.M. after considering the pre summoning evidence in the matter, the charge sheet in the present case, held that there was no ground for summoning the accused u/s 302 IPC. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the said order dated 26.08.2014 was assailed by the complainant i.e. wife and son of Horil Mehto.
33) The deceased Horil Mehto was medically examined vide MLC bearing no. 2441/2012 Ex. PW11/A by Dr. Vikas, whose handwriting and signature were identified by Dr. Kapil PW11. As per MLC the patient brought in unconscious condition with bleeding in right ear with abrasion. He was found positive for the smell of alcohol. There was swelling on the right side of the forehead. The patient was referred to Neuro Surgery. It is the contention of ld. Counsel for the accused that there is no evi dence on record that liquor was consumed in the TSR as no ex amination of the TSR was got conducted and no bottles of liquor were recovered from the TSR. In this context it is relevant to note that it is settled law that the benefit of any lapses in the in vestigation shall not accrue to the accused. Hence, the fact that the TSR was not sent for forensic examination, in light of other evidence on record will not absolve the accused of his guilt.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 27/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
34) Subsequently Horil Mehto expired in the hospital and vide DD No. 6A Ex. PW1/C information was received at PS Mandawali at 01.05 hours from LNJP Hospital that Horil Mehto had been declared dead. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted by PW14 Dr. Kulbhushan Prasad vide postmortem report Ex. PW14/A. On examination they found following exter nal injuries on the body of Horil Mehto :
"Reddish brown contused abrasion of size 6 cms x 5 cms present over right tempro occipital region of scalp, 3.5 cms from midline, 6 cms above right mastoid"
On internal examination of head, following injuries were found :
i) Effusion of blood was found present in right fronto tempro occipital region of scalp.
ii) Linear fracture of size 16 cms was found in frontal right tempro occipital bones with effusion of blood at fracture margin. Linear fracture of size 9 cms. Was found present in mid dle cranial fossa with effusion of blood at fracture margin.
iii) Subdural hemorrhage was found present over left cerebral hemisphere. Hemorrhagic contusion was found present in left tempro occipital and left basifrontal lobes. Patchy diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage was found present over both the cere bral hemisphere.
35) He also proved subsequent opinion given by him regarding cause of death which was cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to head. All injuries was ante Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 28/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi mortem in nature and caused by blunt force trauma. He proved his opinion as Ex. PW14/B.
36) As discussed hereinabove PW3 and PW5 in their ex aminationinchief stated that deceased Horil Mehto was in drunk condition at the time of incident and he was pushed by accused Ajay due to which Horil Mehto fell down on the pavement of Railway underpass and became unconscious. The MLC Ex.
PW11/A and the postmortem report of Horil Mehto PW14/A in dicate injury on his temporal occipital region where a linear frac ture of 16 cms with effusion of blood was found. Another linear fracture of 9 cm was found in middle cranial fossa with effusion of blood. Hemorrhage was found present over left cerebral hemi sphere. Accordingly, head injuries were found on the deceased Horil Mehto. Cause of death was also opined to be cranio cere bral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to head. Hence, the injury found on deceased Horil Mehto corroborate the version of PW3 and PW5 in their examinationinchief that accused Ajay Mehto pushed the deceased Horil Mehto, who was in drunk con dition, and the deceased fell down on pavement of Railway un derpass and became unconscious.
37) Perusal of the site plan Ex. PW15/B, which was pre pared at the instance of PW Ashok Kumar, and the scaled site plan Ex. PW10/A indicates that the height of the footpath from where accused Ajay pushed deceased Horil Mehto is 75 cms i.e. 2½ feet. The photographs of the spot have also been placed on Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 29/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi record Ex.PW12/A1 to A3, which also show the height of the footpath.
38) The MLC of deceased Horil Mehto Ex. PW11/A in dicates that deceased Horil Mehto was found positive for the smell of alcohol. In this regard both PW3 Madhusudhan and PW5 Ashok deposed that they were consuming alcohol while sit ting in the TSR of accused Ajay due to which the quarrel oc curred which eventually resulted in death of Horil Mehto. PW3 deposed that on the day of incident he met deceased Horil Mehto at about 07.00/07.30 pm. He was already drunk when he met PW3. Horil Mehto consumed more liquor than PW3 and Ashok. Horil Mehto was stumbling while standing and speaking. In this regard PW5 Ashok deposed that all three of them i.e. PW5, Mad husudan and Horil Mehto were consuming liquor in the TSR. PW5 in his crossexamination deposed that Horil Mehto was not in a position to talk as he was heavily drunk. Hence, both PW3 and PW5 deposed that at the time of incident deceased Horil Mehto was in heavily drunk condition. In these circumstances the head injury could have been caused after being pushed even from height of 2½ feet, if due to his drunk condition and thus weak reflexes, the deceased was not able to save himself from the fall.
39) The accused has been charged for the offence u/s 304 IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There are two kind of punishments provided under section 304 IPC which apply to two different circumstances :
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 30/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi (1) If the act by which death is caused is done with intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine.
(2) It the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.
40) If there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of knowledge and not intention to cause murder and bodily injury then the same would fall under Section 304 PartII.
41) In the case titled as Jani Gulab Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra1969 (2) UJ 598 SC, a similar fact situation obtained.
In the said case, the accused had given blows to the deceased due to which he fell on the street as a result of which his head struck against the hard surface of the street and the occipital region of his head got fractured and he died. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that under these circumstances, no knowledge can be imputed to the accused that he was aware that his action would lead to the death of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 31/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi the case was not covered even in part II of the section 304 IPC and his conviction was converted from304 Part II IPC to sec 323 IPC. The Hon'ble supreme Court made the following observations:
"We are unable to agree with High Court that the accused must be posted with the knowledge that death was likely to result in the circumstances the injuries were caused by him to the deceased. It is very rarely that if a man is pushed and he falls on the road the occipital bone gets fractured. Here it is perhaps due to the drunken condition of the deceased that while falling he could not avoid his skull falling on the road At any rate, in our opinion it is difficult to impute knowledge to the accused that death was likely to result by the push he is alleged to have given."
The appellant was therefore held not guilty u/s 304 IPC and was eventually convicted for simple hurt u/s 323 IPC.
42) It would also be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Udayanath Pradhan, date of decision 17.07.2013 in Crl. Appeal No. 77/1998. In the said case, the accused/respondent gave two fist blows on the head of the deceased and eventually the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Ld. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge u/s 302 IPC and convicted him u/s 323 IPC. The Hon'ble High Court while upholding the decision of the Ld. Trial Court observed that there was neither any pre meditation nor was it established on record that the accused/respondent had any intention to cause the death of deceased and further observed that the accused/ respondent gave two slaps without knowledge that the same would ultimately cause the death of the deceased.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 32/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
43) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Manish v. State, in CRL.A.528/2006, dated 01.10.2015, dealt with a similar fact situation wherein the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of legs and fists. When a person came to rescue the deceased, the appellant alongwith other accused persons gave a push to the deceased due to which he fell down on a wooden cart and was injured in his head. He was taken to the hospital and he was declared brought dead. The cause of death was cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact on the head. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 11 of the judgment made the following observations :
"11. From the facts of the case, it becomes apparent that there was no intention to cause death.
Noknowledge also could be attributed to the appellant that giving a push to a person is likely to causedeath or such bodily injury which may lead to death. Thus, in the absence of either the knowledgeand intention which are the prerequisites for attracting the ingredients of the offence under Section304 of the IPC, the conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid Section is unwarranted."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court further observed as follows :
"23.Admittedly, none of the accused persons were armed with any weapon. The external injuries onthe person of the deceased also do not reflect that the deceased was brutally assaulted. The injuriessuffered by the deceased are in the nature of abrasion and contusion. The death has been causedbecause of internal injury caused in the head and that too, because of deceased having fallen on awooden cart after he was pushed. In such a situation, it is difficult to fathom the requisite intentionof the appellant in causing the death of the deceased.
24. Thus, for the reasons stated, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304PartII with Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 33/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, does not appear to be warranted in the facts of this case.
25. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is therefore set aside.
26. The appellant has definitely assaulted the deceased causing grievous hurt to him on his head,though without intention of causing his death or such bodily injury which could lead to his death.The appellant is, therefore, is liable and is hereby convicted for the offence under Section 325 of theIPC and is sentenced to the period which he has already undergone (over six months)."
44) In the present case it is proved on record that accused Ajay during a quarrel on the issue of consuming liquor by PW3 Madhusudan, PW5 Ashok Kumar and deceased Horil Mehto, had pushed Horil Mehto, who was in drunk condition, due to which he fell down on the pavement of railway underpass. The height of the said footpath from which he fell down was about 2 ½ feet. The quarrel had occurred on the spur of moment as PW3 Madhusudan, PW5 Ashok Kumar and deceased Horil Mehto were consuming liquor in the TSR of accused Ajay Kumar and he objected to it. The evidence brought on record does not indicate that the accused had any intention to cause death of the deceased. No weapon was used by the accused at the time of incident and he was unarmed. There is no evidence to show that the push had been given by accused with great or extraordinary force causing bodily injury which would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. One external injury was found on the head of the deceased and the death was caused due to cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to head. Admittedly, the accused had pushed deceased Horil Mehto due to which he fell down on the Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 34/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi pavement of railway underpass from a height of 2 ½ feet only which under normal circumstances would not have resulted in death of a person. It was only because deceased Horil Mehto was in drunk condition that he could not avoid the head injury which resulted in his death. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. There is no evidence to show that the accused had intended to cause the death of deceased Horil Mehto. The incident thus took place on a spur of moment without pre meditation as the accused got angry when he saw PW3 Madhusudan, PW5 Ashok Kumar and deceased Horil Mehto consuming liquor in his TSR.
45) Hence, in view of the abovesaid discussion, the ingredients of Section 304 IPC are not fulfilled in the present case. The accused had given a push to the deceased due to which he fell down on the pavement of railway underpass of the height of 2½ feet and suffered cranio cerebral damage resulting in his death. It is evident on record that neither the deceased was pushed with the intention to cause death nor any knowledge can be imputed that the accused was aware that pushing the deceased from height of 2 ½ feet would result in his death. However, the accused had pushed the deceased from a height of two and a half feet while he was apparently in inebriated state, thereby causing grievous hurt to him on his head, though without intention of causing his death or such bodily injury which could lead to his death, therefore, the accused is held guilty and is hereby convicted for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 35/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi
46) Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion, accused Ajay Kumar is held guilty and is convicted for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt punishable u/s 325 IPC.
Announced in the open Court on this 29th day of November, 2022 (Deepali Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge04 East District/KKD Courts/Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 1280/2016 Page 36/36 ASJ-04/East/KKD/Delhi