State vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta
2010 Latest Caselaw 1231 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Decision : March 4th, 2010

+                      Crl.A.No.171/2010

        STATE                                          ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP with
                                       Ms.Richa Kapoor.
                                       Insp. Dinesh Kumar, P.S.
                                       Rajouri Garden.

                    versus

        MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA                          ..... Respondent
                    Through:           Mr.B.S.Rana and Mr.Raj
                                       Singh, Advocates


         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 Reporter or not?              Yes
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. On 15.02.2010 while granting leave to appeal, it

was directed that the appeal would be listed at the end of

"After Notice Miscellaneous Matters" on 04.03.2010 i.e. today.

2. Mr.M.N.Dudeja learned counsel for the State and

Mr.B.S.Rana learned counsel for the respondent state that

appeal may be heard today itself.

3. With reference to the report Ex.PW-17/A of the

ballistic expert Sh.K.C.Varshney PW-17, and the evidence of a

fired cartridge being recovered from the spot where the crime

took place, Sh.B.S.Rana learned counsel for the respondent

very fairly concedes that there is evidence to link the cartridge

with the Belgium pistol of which the licensed holder is the

respondent.

4. Without going into any further nity-grity of the

evidence, Mr.B.S.Rana learned counsel for the respondent

very fairly concedes that notwithstanding the eye-witnesses

turning hostile, through the medium of pistol, the used

cartridge seized at the spot as also the report of the ballistic

expert, it stands established that the pistol of the respondent

was the weapon of offence.

5. Briefly noted case of the prosecution is that at a

marriage procession outside Sai Vatika, when celebrations

were on, a bullet got fired which hit Rajender on the forehead

and traversing upward lodged itself in the scalp. The

respondent was the one who had fired. He was apprehended

at the spot and beaten.

6. Since eye-witnesses have turned hostile, there is no

evidence as to what preceded the firing but in view of the

afore-noted facts, Sh.M.N.Dudeja learned counsel for the State

concedes that at best the act of the respondent attracts the

offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

7. The appellant has remained in jail for a period of 8

months.

8. In the decision reported as 2005 (116) DLT 634

Nehru Jain Vs. State NCT of Delhi in a somewhat similar facts

where a gun shot was fired from a revolver during a marriage

procession, convicting the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 304 Part II IPC, the accused was sentenced to

undergo a sentence of 2 years with a direction that accused

would pay compensation in sum of Rs.3.5 lacs (Rupees Three

Lacs & Fifty Thousand Only). The compensation awarded by

the Court was in exercise of the power vested under Section

357 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. Suffice would it be to state that a wanton act of

celebration during marriage, resulting in the death of some

person does not attract criminality as is conventionally

understood. There is no motive for the crime. There is no

desire to seek any pecuniary gain or cause any pecuniary loss

to anyone. There is neither hatred nor anger much less any

kind of enmity against the deceased.

10. Noting that the respondent has his roots in society

and is gainfully employed running a retail shop and is having a

wife and two young children; further nothing that the

respondent is not involved in any kind of criminal activity,

noting further that learned counsel for the respondent and the

respondent who is present in person said that within two

months from today the compensation of Rs.3.5 lacs would be

paid in the name of Mrs.Surinder Kaur (mother of the

deceased). We are of the opinion that ends of justice would be

met if the appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned

judgment/order dated 15.05.2009 acquitting the appellant

and awarding appropriate compensation.

11. The respondent is convicted for having committed

the offence of culpable homicide nor amounting to murder and

punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. The sentence which

is imposed upon the respondent is to undergo imprisonment

for the period already undergone. Additionally, the respondent

shall pay compensation in sum of Rs.3.5 lacs by tendering the

pay order/banker's cheque in the name of Mrs.Surinder Kaur.

12. The pay order/banker's cheque would be handed

over by the respondent to his counsel Sh.B.S.Rana, Advocate

from whose office the same may be collected by Mrs.Surinder

Kaur or her husband Hardyal Singh.

13. Sh.Hardyal Singh is present in Court and is

identified by Inspector Dinesh Kumar P.S. Rajauri Garden.

Mr.B.S.Rana states that he has familiarized himself with

Sh.Hardyal Singh and would hand over the banker's

cheque/pay order to him.

14. It is agreed that Sardar Hardyal Singh would collect

the banker's cheque/pay order from the office of Sh.B.S.Rana

on 03.05.2010.

15. The address of Mr.B.S.Rana, Advocate from where

the banker's cheuque/pay order would be collected is: 36A, AD

Block, Power Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi-110 088.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

SURESH KAIT, J MARCH 4, 2010 'mr'