The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs State consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Mini Pushkarna reiterated that delay in recording the statement of witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimony.
Facts
This appeal arised out of the judgment and the order on sentence passed by learned ASJ arising out of an FIR registered u/s 302 IPC. On the date of the incident they heard noise from their room and gathered outside their room. On peeping through the holes of the door, they saw that deceased was lying on the floor with his face down and the appellant was hitting him with kicks and fisticuffs. The door of the room was opened by the appellant only after alarm was raised by the various persons present there who had gathered outside their room on the date of the incident after hearing noise from their room. When the appellant opened the door, the prosecution public witnesses saw that the deceased was lying on the floor in a face down position and was bleeding from his nose. When he was taken to the hospital, he was declared brought dead. The appellant was convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. Benefit of Section 428 CrPC was also extended to him.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The judgment was contrary to the facts of the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such the appellant should be given benefit of doubt. None of the prosecution witnesses had stated that they had seen the appellant causing any injury to the deceased. There was delay of 4 days in registering the F.I.R., which has not been properly explained. There was undue delay in recording the witnesses’ statements. So, conviction of the appellant was to be modified to an offence punishable u/s 304 IPC and not Section 302 IPC.
Respondent: There was no delay in registration of F.I.R. or in recording of witnesses’ statements. Both the deceased and the appellant herein were residing in the same room. So, the onus shifts on the appellant to explain how the deceased died u/s 106 of the Evidence Act. Prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, regarding the culpability of the appellant in causing murder of the deceased.
Observations of the Court
The Bench, relying on Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, reiterated that in any case, where there is delay in making the F.I.R. the court is to look at the causes for it and if such causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version, no consequence shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that delay in lodging the F.I.R. would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful and be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Further, the eyewitnesses remained constant and unvarying in their depositions. So, the delay of 4 days in recording the witnesses’ cannot be considered as an infirmity in the prosecution case.The evidence against the appellant is incontrovertible and proves the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding the modification of conviction of the appellant u/s 304, relying on Nandlal v. State of Maharashtra, it was further noted that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant.The circumstances of the case indicated that the appellant had not taken undue advantage of the situation. But it could be said that the act was done by the appellant with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. So the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Thus, the bench modified the conviction from an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Judgment
The appellant had already undergone sentence of about 9 years 6 months imprisonmentas on 16.09.2021. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment was modified to the period already undergone by the appellant. The appellant was thus directed to be released forthwith unless his presence was required in any other case.
Citation: CRL.A. 448/2018
Bench: Justice Mukta Gupta, Justice Mini Pushkarna
Decided on: 8th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
