Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pradeep Khatri vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 September, 2015
z& IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1195 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2607 of 2015)
Pradeep Khatri ... Appellant
VERSUS
State of NCT of Delhi ... Respondents)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mohan Prasad, learned counsel for the State. This Court on 27.3.2015 had issued a limited notice as regards the conversion of the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted by Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the deceased Ajay Mann, the Co-accused Tyagi and the present appellant were good friends and there is nothing on record to show animosity and, in fact, the occurrence had taken place due to an unusual situation. Elaborating the said submission, it is urged by him that the explanation offered by the accused-appellant was to the effect that while celebrating the engagement ceremony of the deceased, the incident happened. It is his further submission that the prosecution has not been able to bring anything on record to show that the appellant had any kind of intention to cause such an Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by injury that would cause death.
Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.10.05 17:13:42 ISTIn essence, the proponement is the Reason: occurrence took place due to over enthusiasm pertaining to celebration and it was accidental.
2Mr. Mohan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State would contend that though the intention has not been proven, yet there is ample evidence on record to come to a definite conclusion that the appellant had fired the shot and, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court which has been concurred with by the High Court should not be faulted.
To appreciate the rival submissions placed at the Bar, we have carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as that of the High Court. The informant who had made allegations against the accused had turned hostile and, in fact, totally resiled from his version. As is evident, such an occurrence took place and the deceased lost his life because of the gun shot injury that was fired from the gun of the appellant. However, it is evincible that the appellant had no intention to cause death. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to convert the offence from one under Section 302 of the IPC to one under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and impose sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. The fine as imposed by the trial court shall remain in tact along with the default clause.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
.....................,J.
(Dipak Misra) .....................,J.
(R. Banumathi) New Delhi;
September 10, 2015.
ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.5 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2607/2015
PRADEEP KHATRI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent(s)
Date : 10/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C.K. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Teotia, Adv.
Mr. Gopi Nagar, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kaushik,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Prasad, Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in the signed order.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)