Delhi High Court
Sanjeev @ Sanjeeva vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 8 April, 2016
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : April 08, 2016
+ CRL.A. 210/2016
SANJEEV @ SANJEEVA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.M.L.Yadav and Mr.Lokesh
Chandra, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for
the State with Inspector Rajeev
Vimal, PS Kalyan Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Sanjeev @ Sanjeeva has been convicted for murdering Vikas vide impugned judgment dated January 27, 2016 and has been awarded imprisonment for life vide order on sentence dated January 29, 2016. Along with Sanjeev, Manjeet, Paramjeet and Yogesh also faced trial. But they have been acquitted and there being no challenge to the impugned judgment to that extent we are now concerned only with the conviction of Sanjeev for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in the present appeal.
2. To prove that Sanjeev murdered Vikas, the prosecution relied upon two eye witnesses Dharam Das, PW-2 and Ram Baksh PW-4 who were travelling in the TSR along with Vikas. We note that when Dharam Das PW-2 was examined he did not support the prosecution case and thus he was declared hostile. The learned APP sought permission to cross-examine CRL.A. 210/2016 Page 1 of 6 Dharam Das however he also sought deferment of the cross-examination of Dharam Das till Ram Baksh was examined. Thereafter the prosecution failed to produce Dharam Das and thus he was not tendered for cross- examination. In view thereof, the learned Trial Court rightly excluded the deposition of Dharam Das in his examination-in-chief.
3. Ram Baksh PW-4 who got recorded his statement on May 17, 2012 on the basis of which FIR was registered stated that he was working as Beldar in MCD and at about 11.00 PM on May 16, 2012 he along with his friend Vikas @ Mandali and Dharam Das were sitting at Kondli bridge and talking to each other. At about 12.40 AM on May 17, 2012 all three of them left for their house in the auto rickshaw bearing number DL 1 RK 7745 which belonged to Vikas. When they reached near Trilok Puri Primary School, the auto rickshaw stopped. Sanjeev S/o Suresh along with his two friends Gola and Manjeet @ Thaggi, who were residents of 11 Block, Kalyan Puri, came there in intoxicated condition. Sanjeev angrily asked Vikas to move forward his auto rickshaw. However, since the auto rickshaw could not start Vikas stated that he would soon take the auto rickshaw ahead. On this Sanjeev retorted Vikas whereafter Sanjeev, Gola, Thaggi pulled out Vikas from his auto and started beating him with legs and fists. Thereafter all the three took out knives and due to fear Ram Baksh and Dharam Das did not speak anything. Gola and Thaggi caught hold of Vikas whereas Sanjeev gave a stab injury on his chest. Hearing the noise, Sanjeev's brother Yogesh also reached the spot and took Vikas in his auto rickshaw to LBS hospital and stated in the hospital that he had found Vikas in an injured condition. On reaching the hospital, due to the fear of Sanjeev, Ram Baksh and Dharam Das did not say anything and left the hospital. The doctor declared CRL.A. 210/2016 Page 2 of 6 Vikas as brought dead.
4. Inspector Sushil Kumar PW-16 conducted the inquest proceedings. He lifted the blood and the earth control from the spot besides the blood from the auto rickshaw in which Vikas was taken to the hospital. Statement of Dharam Das was also recorded by PW-7 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, as noted above since he did not appear in the witness box for cross-examination his deposition before the Court cannot be relied upon.
5. Dr.Vinay Kumar Singh, PW-8 who conducted the post-mortem of Vikas found an incised stab wound directed from left to right between 8 th and 9th ribs besides three abrasions on the body of Vikas. He opined the cause of death to be due to haemorrhagic shock consequent upon the stab injury to the chest caused by single edged cutting weapon/knife. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature and recent in duration. Injury No.1 was opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. Before Court, Ram Baksh deposed in sync with his statement on the basis of which FIR was registered however, he also stated that after stabbing Vikas, Sanjeev called his brother Yogesh to take Vikas to the hospital, whereas he and Dharam Das got afraid and went back to their houses. The next day they were called to the Police Station where Ram Baksh got recorded his statement. No doubt this part of his testimony that Sanjeev called his brother Yogesh though is at variance with his earlier statement that Yogesh came on hearing the noise however it does not contradict the material fact that Yogesh took Vikas to the hospital in his auto rickshaw. Statement of Ram Baksh is corroborated from the MLC of Vikas Ex.PW- 12/A which notes the deceased to have been brought to LBS Hospital by one CRL.A. 210/2016 Page 3 of 6 Yogesh S/o Suresh Pal at 1.40 AM on May 17, 2012. In cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant, nothing material could be elicited from Ram Baksh. The learned Trial Court committed no error in separating the grain from chaff and relying upon the testimony of Ram Baksh who had witnessed the incident.
7. The issue that arises for consideration is that whether on the facts of the case an offence under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 Part-II IPC is made out. As noted above Sanjeev had a quarrel with Vikas when he could not move ahead his auto rickshaw and on Vikas's replying Sanjeev retorted saying "Tu Mujhse Zubaan Ladata Hai" whereafter Sanjeev, Gola and Thaggi brought Vikas out of his auto rickshaw and one stab blow was given. While dealing with the similar issue, the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1983) 2 SCC 342 Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab held-
"5. The only question that we are called upon to examine in the facts and circumstances of this case is whether the appellant could be said to have committed murder of deceased Narinder Singh punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. A quarrel took place on the spur of the moment. The appellant never expected to meet the deceased. When the deceased was just passing by the road in front of the house of the appellant, his forehead dashed with the parnala of the house of the appellant which provoked the deceased to remonstrate the appellant. It is in evidence that there was exchange of abuses and at that time appellant gave a blow with a knife which landed on the chest of the deceased.
7. Undoubtedly, PW 2 Dr H.S. Gill opined that the blow on the chest pierced deep inside the chest cavity resulting in the injury to the heart and this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The question is whether in the circumstances in which the appellant gave a blow with a knife on the chest, he could be said to have intended to cause death or he could be imputed the intention to cause that particular injury CRL.A. 210/2016 Page 4 of 6 which has proved fatal? The circumstances in which the incident occurred would clearly negative any suggestion of premeditation. It was in a sudden quarrel to some extent provoked by the deceased, that the appellant gave one blow with a knife. Could it be said that para 3 of Section 300 is attracted. We have considerable doubt about the conclusion reached by the High Court. We cannot confidently say that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury which is shown to have caused death. There was no premeditation. There was no malice. The meeting was a chance meeting. The cause of quarrel though trivial was just sudden and in this background the appellant, a very young man gave one blow. He could not be imputed with the intention to cause death or the intention to cause that particular injury which has proved fatal. Neither para 1 nor para 3 of Section 300 would be attracted. We are fortified in this view by the decision of this Court in Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana[(1981) 3 SCC 616 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 768 : (1981) 3 SCR 839 : 1981 Cri LJ 1136] . It was subsequently followed in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [(1981) 4 SCC 484 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 856] and Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab [(1981) 4 SCC 245 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 826] . Following the ratio of the aforementioned decisions, we are of the opinion that the appellant could not be convicted for having committed murder of the deceased Narinder Singh. His conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life are liable to be set aside.
8. The next question is what offence the appellant is shown to have committed? In a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife. The incident occurred around 1.45 noon. The quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow in the chest. In these circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Therefore, the appellant is shown to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and a sentence of imprisonment for five years will meet the ends of justice."CRL.A. 210/2016 Page 5 of 6
8. In the facts of the case, the offence having been committed on the spur of moment without any pre-meditation and immediately after the incident Sanjeev having called his brother Yogesh to take the deceased to the hospital, the conviction of the appellant is modified to one under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The appellant will now undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) which if received would be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the victim. In default of payment of fine, the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
9. Appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for updation of the Jail record.
11. TCR be returned.
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE APRIL 08, 2016 'vn' CRL.A. 210/2016 Page 6 of 6