Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Munna Singh @ Pappu on 21 August, 2014

Author: Pradeep Nandrajog

Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Mukta Gupta

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                Date of decision: August 21, 2014

+                       CRL.A. 1243/2011
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                    ..... Appellant
                  Represented by:            Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for
                                             the State.

                        versus

MUNNA SINGH @ PAPPU                                      ..... Respondent
                 Represented by:             None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. By the present appeal the State challenges the judgment dated January 27, 2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the respondent has been convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC though charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

2. The incriminating evidence against the respondent which is not disputed even by the State is the statement of Raju PW-1 the father of the deceased Sonu who stated that Sonu was in the park till late night and did not come home and when he tried to search him he could not trace him. The neighbourer Inder Kumar PW-3 informed that he had seen Sonu with the respondent Munna Singh so he went to his house where they found Sonu lying in injured condition. Inder Kumar has corroborated the version of Raju about Sonu being seen by him with Munna which fact is further Crl.A. 1243/2011 Page 1 of 4 corroborated by Babu Lal PW-4 who found Sonu lying in unconscious condition on the second floor i.e. the house of Munna. From the spot blood stained T-shirt, chappals of the deceased and blood stained earth were lifted.

3. Dr.Meenakshi PW-2 who prepared the MLC Ex.PW2/A noticed multiple bruises on both thighs, left part of cheek, in the region of right cheek and right forearm and also bruises on the upper part of chest and middle of left side of abdomen and back of the body.

4. Dr.Manoj Dhingra PW-10 exhibited the post-mortem report Ex.PW- 10/A and noted the following injuries:

"External injury:

(1) Bruise present over left ear of size 1 x 1 cm and on right ear of size 2 x 1 cm.

(2) Bleeding from nose present. (3) Bruise present over right shoulder of size 3 x 2 cms. (4) Bruise present over bilateral chick over face of size 3 x 2 cms.

Internal Injury:

(1) Sub scalp hemotoma present over bilateral occipital bone and left front parietal region. Generalised massive subdural haemotorma and sub-areconoid hematoma present over occipital region.

Chest: Fracture 2 to 10 rib on right side. Chest cavity contained about 500 ml of blood liquid and clotted. Laceration of right lung size 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.

Abdomen: Abdomen cavity contained 1.5 liters of liquid and clotted blood with laceration of right lobe of liver."

5. According to Dr.Manoj Dhingra the cause of death was comma and haemorrhagic shock as a result of head injury. In the cross-examination he also stated that it was possible that the injuries could be sustained if a person falls from a staircase from a height.

6. Thus the question for determination before this Court is whether the learned Trial Court in view of the evidence on record including the medical evidence was justified in coming to the conclusion that offence of the respondent was punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not 302 IPC. While determining whether an offence falls under Section 299 IPC i.e. Culpable Homicide or Section 300 IPC i.e. Murder, the intention has to be looked into. The difference between the two lies in the degree of culpability.

7. In (2006) 11 SCC 444 Pulicherla Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of A.P. the Court observed:-

"29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters -- plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can Crl.A. 1243/2011 Page 3 of 4 be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used;

(ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may."

8. No weapon of offence was allegedly used nor any recovered. It is thus the case of prosecution that the deceased was given injuries by respondent Munna by kicks and fist blows. Thus it cannot be said that the case falls in the category of offence of murder as defined under Section 300 IPC. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.

9. TCR be sent back.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 21, 2014 'vn' Crl.A. 1243/2011 Page 4 of 4