Karamjeet @ Titu vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 2080 Del

R-32
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of Decision: 20th April, 2010

+                            CRL.APPEAL NO.596/2008

       KARAMJEET @ TITU                           ..... Appellants
                Through:            Ms.Shraddha Bhargava, Advocate

                                    versus

       STATE                                       ..... Respondent
                         Through:   Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?                                    Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. We note that the appellant has filed the appeal

availing services of a legal aid counsel. The appeal has

reached for hearing today. Counsel provided by the Delhi High

Court Legal Services Committee to the appellant has not

appeared and accordingly we appoint Ms.Sharddha Bhargava

Advocate who is present in Court and is on the panel of the

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee as the Amicus

Curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant.

2. We fix the fee of learned counsel in sum of

Rs.5,500/-, to be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services

Committee.

3. The post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A of the deceased

Anna Madrasi, proved through the testimony of its author

Dr.Amit Kochhar PW-1, shows that the deceased had 5

external injuries, being as under:-

"1. Incised wound, 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm bone deep, over left parietal region, 6 cms in front of left pinna.

2. Incised wound, 1 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm cartilage deep, present on left pinna.

3. Incised wound, Y-shaped, longer length 3 cm and shorter arm 2 cms in length, 0.5 cm wide and 0.3 cms bone deep, over left cheek, 5 cms in front of left ear.

4. Lacerated wound, 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep, over left occiput.

5. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.1 cm skin deep, present over left chest, 4 cms below left nipple."

4. Internal examination revealed: „thin film of subdural

haemorrhage present over the left parieto-occipital region.

Diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage seen all over the brain

matter.‟

5. It was opined that injury No.1, 2, 3 and 5 could be

caused by a sharp cutting weapon and injury No.4 could be

caused by a blunt object. Said injury was opined to be

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

6. How did Anna Madrasi suffer the injuries? Two eye

witnesses Saleem PW-2 and Gopal PW-3 have proved the

same.

7. Whereas Saleem has not brought out the exact

contours of what happened, Gopal Singh has done so. Saleem

has said that the accused and the deceased fought over a cup

of tea. Gopal Singh has thrown more light. As per Gopal

Singh, deceased Anna Madrasi came to the tea stall where

accused served him tea, taste whereof was not to the liking of

Anna Madrasi. When Anna Madrasi commented upon the tea,

appellant uttered that he could go somewhere else to take

better tea if the tea served to him was not up to the mark.

Filthy abuses were exchanged between the deceased and the

appellant who took out a „jharna' (a cooking implement used

to drain out oil from fried food) and gave blows to the

deceased. There was some manhandling by Anna Madrasi, at

which accused picked up a bottle of sauce and struck a blow

on the head of Anna Madrasi who started bleeding.

8. It is apparent that the incised wounds on the person

of the deceased, which are non fatal, are the result of the

deceased being hit with the jharna. It is apparent that the

head injury No.4 is the result of a single blow being struck on

the head of the deceased with the bottle of sauce.

9. From the testimony of Gopal Singh it is apparent

that the appellant did not act with any pre-meditation. It is

apparent that everything happened upon a sudden quarrel.

10. During the course of the sudden quarrel a sauce

bottle was picked up and was hit upon the head of the

deceased causing subdural haemorrhage, meaning thereby,

the dura mater i.e. the outer most membrane of the brain got

affected probably due to extravasation of the blood vessels.

11. We accordingly hold that the offence committed by

the appellant is not murder but culpable homicide not

amounting to murder.

12. On the issue of sentence, we note that as per the

nominal roll of the appellant he has undergone an actual

sentence of 5 years and 8 months as of 15.4.2001 and has

earned remission of about nearly 1 year.

13. Considering the fact that the appellant has no past

history of any criminal activity; further taking note of the

circumstances under which the appellant inflicted the injury on

the person of the deceased, we are of the opinion that ends of

justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for the period already undergone.

14. The appeal stands disposed of modifying the

conviction of the appellant, in that, the appellant is held guilty

of committing the offence of culpable homicide not amounting

to murder, for which offence we sentence the appellant to

undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone.

15. Since the appellant is in jail we direct that a copy of

this decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar

with a direction that the appellant shall be set free forthwith.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE

April 20, 2010 mm