Pappu Kumar vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 1439 Del

R-17
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision :15th March, 2010

+                   CRL. APPEAL NO.76/2008

        PAPPU KUMAR                               ..... Appellant
                             Through:   Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate

                        versus

        STATE                                    ..... Respondent
                             Through:   Mr.M.N.Dudeja, A.P.P.

         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. The instant appeal has been filed through jail after

availing services of legal aid counsel.

2. Counsel nominated by the Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee has not appeared at the hearing of the

appeal.

3. Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate on the panel of the

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee is present in Court

and has agreed to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf

of the appellant.

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

Rs.7,500/-, to be paid by Delhi High Court Legal Services

Committee.

5. With reference to the testimony of Bhoot Nath PW-3

and the testimony of Jagdish PW-4 both of whom deposed that

the appellant and the deceased Subhash used to eat and drink

together and resided at Bhairon Mandir and that on the

intervening night of 3rd and 4th March 2004 after taking food,

the two quarreled and during the quarrel the appellant picked

up a stone and gave several blows to Subhash, who died as a

result of the injuries sustained, appellant has been convicted

for the offence of having murdered Subhash and has been

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

6. That Bhoot Nath PW-3 and Jagdish PW-4 were

witnesses to the incident has been corroborated through the

testimony of Ramesh Chand Yadav PW-8, as per whom at

around 10:45 PM on 3.3.2004 Jagdish PW-4 came to his dhaba

and informed him that the appellant was beating Subhash and

that he i.e. Ramesh Chand Yadav rang up the police control

room.

7. We find that the information at the local police

station as transmitted by the police control room has been

recorded vide DD No.67-B, Ex.PW-30/A at 10:50 PM. We note

that as proved by Insp.V.P.Sharma PW-18, he met Bhoot Nath

at the place of the crime where he recorded Bhoot Nath's

statement Ex.PW-3/A and after making endorsement Ex.PW-

18/A beneath the statement got the FIR registered. The time

of dispatch of the teherir is 1:30 AM on 4.3.2004 i.e. the

middle of the night.

8. Having perused the testimony of Bhoot Nath and

Jagdish we are satisfied that both of them are truthful

witnesses.

9. But, we do not agree with the conclusion arrived at

by the learned Trial Judge that the offence made out is that of

murder. We say so for the reason there is no motive for the

crime. Everything happened at the spur of the moment. The

appellant and the deceased quarreled probably on the issue of

who would be sleeping where. What was used as weapon of

offence was a stone lying handy.

10. Looking at the post-mortem report of the deceased

it can safely be said that the person who inflicted the wounds

would be attributed knowledge of a lesser degree i.e. that by

his act he is likely to cause death and not knowledge of the

higher degree that death would be the inevitable result of the

acts.

11. We hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence of

culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for the same

we hold that the appellant should suffer punishment to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

12. The appeal is partially allowed. The conviction of

the appellant for the offence of murder is set aside and the

appellant is convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not

amounting to murder, for which offence the appellant is

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

13. Needless to state, the appellant would be entitled

to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. as also remissions as per

policy of the jail authorities.

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

this decision be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar

to be made available to the appellant.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE

March 15, 2010 dk bainsla