Delhi High Court
Satya Prakash vs State on 6 December, 2010
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. A. 220/2001
% Reserved on: 30th November, 2010
Decided on: 6th December, 2010
SATYA PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Rana & Mr. Pawan Sehrawat,
Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, A.P.P.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Not necessary
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. By this appeal, the Appellant challenges his conviction for offence
punishable under Section 304 Part (II) IPC and the order of sentence directing
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a
fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that, on 31 st December, 1996 at about
10.30 p.m. when Hansraj, son of the deceased and complainant was coming
by his scooter, the Appellant stopped him and a quarrel took place between
them. On hearing the noise of quarrel, besides one or two other persons, his
parents also reached there who separated PW 9 Hansraj from the clutches of
the Appellant and took him towards one side. On this, the Appellant gave a
fist blow on the chest of his father due to which he fell down and became
unconscious. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought
dead. On the information being sent to the police, statement of Smt. Dalip
Kaur PW 8 the wife of deceased was recorded on the basis of which an FIR
was registered. After completion of investigation on a charge-sheet being
filed, the Appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 304
IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant assailing the judgment contends that
the only role assigned to the Appellant is giving one fist blow on the chest of
the deceased. In the MLC Ex. PW5/A the deceased was stated to be brought
dead on 31st December, 1996 at 11.23 p.m. and there was no external sign of
any injury. As per the postmortem report, Ex. PW6/A the cause of death was
due to "Acute Myocardial Ischaemia(heart attack) subsequent to Aortic Valve
Stenosis & Fresh Blood Clots present in the Right Coronary Artery". The
mode of death was due to natural disease process. It is stated that since the
deceased died of natural death, no case for conviction for an offence under
Section 304 Part (II) IPC is made out.
4. Learned APP, on the other hand, contends that in view of the testimony
of PW 6 Smt. Dilip Kaur, the complainant and wife of the deceased and PW9,
Hans Raj, son of the deceased, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
Appellant gave a fist blow on the chest of the deceased resulting in his death.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The testimony of PW
8, the complainant who is the wife of the deceased and PW9 Hansraj, son of
the deceased proves that there was a quarrel on the 31 st December, 1996 at
about 10:30 p.m. between the Appellant and PW9. When the deceased
intervened the Appellant gave a fist blow on the chest of the deceased, due to
which he fell down and became unconscious. Nothing contrary has been
elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses on this count.
6. The moot issue would however be whether in such a case, the Appellant
can be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part(II) IPC.
As per the opinion of the PW 6, the doctor who conducted the postmortem,
the deceased died due to "Acute Myocardial Ischaemia(heart attack)
subsequent to Aortic Valve Stenosis & Fresh Blood Clots present in the Right
Coronary Artery". The mode of death is opined as natural death process.
Moreover, PW8 Dilip Kaur in her cross-examination has admitted that her
husband was a heart patient. This court in Mohammad Sharif vs. State, Crl.
Appeal 468 of 1999 has dealt with the issue whether on such facts the offence
would fall within the ambit of 304 or 325 or 323 IPC.
7. On the facts of the present case, the Appellant cannot be attributed with
any intention or knowledge to cause an injury that is likely to cause death.
The death in the present case has been opined to be natural due to disease
process. Moreover, one single blow on the chest region which is covered with
ribcage in the attending circumstances, cannot be said to be with the intention
or knowledge of causing grievous hurt.
8. The conviction of the Appellant is thus altered to one for an offence
punishable under Section 323 IPC. The sentence that can be awarded for an
offence punishable under Section 323 IPC is rigorous imprisonment upto one
year or with fine or both. The Appellant has already undergone a sentence of
more than one month. As the Appellant is not involved in any other case and
considering that the incident is 14 years old, it would be appropriate to modify
the sentence of the Appellant to the period already undergone.
9. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of by modifying the conviction of
the Appellant to one for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone. The
Appellant, who is presently in judicial custody, be released forthwith.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 06, 2010
dk
