Delhi High Court
Sanjay & Others vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 27 April, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 606/2003
SANJAY & ORS. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S. K. Pandey, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 27.04.2010
1. Appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 Indian
Penal Code and have been awarded 4 years rigorous imprisonment
and have been directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. As per the finding recorded by the Learned trial court, three
appellants had assaulted one Mohd. Idris on 21.9.1999 and Sanjay
had given dagger blows on his right thigh and pubic region. Mohd.
Idris appeared in the witness box and testified.
3. After some hearing, learned counsel for appellants has
CRL.A.NO.606/2003 Page 1
confined his submission and submitted that appellants have been
wrongly convicted under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
infact they could have been convicted only under Section 324/34 IPC.
There is merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for
appellants. MLC in question Ex. PW 2/A records that the victim had
sustained stab injuries. There were two injuries on the thigh of about
1 ½ and 3 inches. The depth of the injuries however is not indicated
in the MLC Ex. PW 2/A. The MLC records that Mohd. Idris was
smelling of alcohol. I also examined the statement of PW-3 Mohd.
Idris. He had stated that after being stabbed, his son lifted him from
the ground and made him sit on a bench. After sometime he was
taken inside the house and thereafter he called the police. He was
taken to the police station from where he was shifted to the hospital.
Thus even after the said incident, the victim PW 3 Mohd. Idris was
conscious and it was after some time that he was taken to the
hospital.
4. For conviction under Section 307 IPC, it must be shown that the
accused acted with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that if he by the act caused death, he would be guilty
of murder. The act must be done with such mens rea as would have
constituted the act of murder, if death had occurred. Where the
CRL.A.NO.606/2003 Page 2
circumstances under which the incident was caused preclude any
inference that assault was caused with an intent to murder, the case
would fall within the scope of Section 324 IPC.
5. In the present case, the complainant Mohd Idris (PW-3) has
stated that on 21.9.1999 he had accompanied appellant's father
Sopali to Ramgarh from where he returned to his house intoxicated.
He was present in the ground floor of his house, when Sopali called
him out and they stood on a culvert, where appellant Sanjay and
Bunty were also present. A quarrel ensued and he was grappled by
Sopali and Bunty, while appellant Sanjay stabbed him.
6. PW-4 Mohd. Jail also confirms that his father Mohd. Idris (PW-
3) had gone with Sopali and returned back in an inebriated state.
After sometime again Sopali came and called out the complainant
Mohd. Idris and took him to a culvert in the street where he heard a
quarrel. He has stated that while the fight had ensued, the appellant
who was present at the spot went to his house to get a dagger and
returned after 2-3 minutes. Within this span of 2-3 minutes, the fight
continued. Thereupon, Sopali and Bunty caught hold of his father and
appellant Sanjay stabbed him.
CRL.A.NO.606/2003 Page 3
7. The important thing to be borne in mind in determining the
question whether an offence under section 307, is made out is
intention i.e. the intention should be such to cause death. The
circumstances and the injury inflicted on the complainant is reflective
of the mens rea necessary to make a person liable under Section
307. In the present case, the appellant in consequence of a quarrel
between his father and the PW-3, and stabbed the complainant's
thigh which reflects his intention to cause injury but precludes any
inference that the assault was caused with guilty intent to murder.
8. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the appellants did
not have any intention or knowledge as to cause death of the victim.
Conviction is accordingly confirmed but under Section 324 read with
Section 34 IPC, instead of 307/34 IPC.
9. The appellants Sopali and Umarpal have already under gone
sentence of one year, four months and 29 days and earned remission
of four months and 14 days as per the nominal roll. Accused Sanjay
has under gone sentence of one year, 11 months and 2 days and
earned remission of five months.
The alleged offence was committed in the year 1999 thereafter as per
nominal roll there is no criminal case against the appellants. It is also
a matter of fact that the appellants Sopali and Umarpal were released
CRL.A.NO.606/2003 Page 4
on bail vide order dated 9th December, 2004 and thereafter Sanjay
was released on bail vide order dated 6/5/2005.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts the sentence is restricted to
the period undergone. Appellants have already paid fine of Rs.1000/-.
The sentence of fine is sustained.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
APRIL 27, 2010.
Ab/VKR/J
CRL.A.NO.606/2003 Page 5
