Ravinder Kumar vs The State
2014 Latest Caselaw 182 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            RESERVED ON : 13th DECEMBER, 2013
                            DECIDED ON : 09th JANUARY, 2014

+                         CRL.A. 397/2001

       RAVINDER KUMAR                                ....Appellant
               Through :        Mr.Anil Aggarwal, Advocate.

                                versus


       THE STATE                                 ....Respondent
                Through :       Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Ravinder Kumar (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated

02.05.2001 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 50/2000

arising out of FIR No. 184/96 PS Anand Vihar by which he was convicted

for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and by an order

on sentence dated 04.05.2001, he was awarded RI for five years with fine

` 5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 16.08.1996 in

between 08.45 P.M. to 09.00 P.M. at house No. 381, Karkardooma, he

inflicted injuries by a knife to Hukam Singh in an attempt to commit

murder. The occurrence took place about 09.00 P.M. The victim Hukam

Singh was taken to GTB Hospital from the spot. MLC (Ex.PW-5/A)

records the arrival time of the patient at 09.30 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No.

14 was recorded regarding the occurrence. PW-21 (Insp. Sanjay Singh)

went to the spot and recorded Hukam Singh‟s statement (Ex.PW-1/A);

made endorsement (Ex.PW-21/A) and lodged First Information Report at

11.55 P.M. There was no delay in lodging the report with the police. In

the statement (Ex.PW-1/A), complainant gave vivid details of the incident

and implicated Ravinder Kumar for inflicting injuries on the left side of

the chest by a knife. He also disclosed appellant‟s motive to cause

injuries. Since the appellant was named in the earliest available

opportunity by the complainant, there was least possibility to concoct a

false story in a short interval. While appearing as PW-1, the complainant -

Hukam Singh proved the version given to the police at the first instance

without any variation. He named Ravinder Kumar for causing injuries to

him when he objected to abuses given by him to Pushpa Sharma, his

tenant in house No. 271. In the cross-examination, specific suggestion was

put to the victim that "after dissuading the accused from abusing the said

lady, he (the complainant) did not return to his house or remained in the

street or that he deliberately quarrelled with the accused in the street and

sustained injuries". Presence of the accused at the spot was not denied. No

explanation was given as to why the accused in the quarrel inflicted

injuries to the complainant. Material facts deposed by the witness

regarding the sequence of events leading to the infliction of the injuries

remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. PW-2 (Krishan Lal), an

independent witness from neighbourhood fully supported the complainant

and corroborated his version in its entirety. He also implicated Ravinder

Kumar for inflicting injuries to the complainant with a sharp edged

weapon in his hand. PW-3 (Sonwati) and PW-4 (Sachin), wife and son of

the victim, whose presence at the spot was natural and probable also

supplemented the prosecution version and proved its case without any

major discrepancies. PW-7 (Pushpa Sharma) also deposed that she had

gone to lodge the complaint with her landlord - Hukam Singh for the

abuses hurled at her by the appellant who used to visit another tenant

Usha in the said premises. In the absence of any prior enmity or ill-will,

all these witnesses were not expected to falsely rope in the appellant and

to let the real culprit go scot free. The ocular testimony of the prosecution

witnesses is in consonance with medical evidence. PW-5 (Dr.R.Dayal)

medically examined Hukam Singh on 16.08.1996 and prepared MLC

(Ex.PW-5/A). Minor discrepancies and contradictions highlighted by the

appellant‟s counsel about the non-recovery of the weapon of offence and

PW-16 (Yusuf Khan) turning hostile are inconsequential and do not affect

the core of the prosecution case. Evidence has come on record that

injuries were caused with a sharp edged weapon. It makes no difference if

it was scissor or knife. There is nothing on record to suggest that the

injuries were accidental in nature. PW-5 (Dr.R.Dayal) was not cross-

examined in this regard. The prosecution was able to establish that the

appellant was the author of the injuries sustained by the victim - Hukam

Singh.

3. The next question, which requires consideration is what

offence is made out against the accused - appellant. The Trial Court has

convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 307

IPC. For proving the case under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to

prove that the accused while inflicting injuries to the victim, had an

intention to cause his death or he had the knowledge that the act done by

him may result in the death of the victim and if there is an intention or

knowledge coupled with some overt act in the execution thereof, then the

accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC. In the

instant case, the initial confrontation had taken place with Pushpa Sharma

at house No. 271, Karkardooma. Pushpa Sharma went to lodge complaint

against him to her landlord - Hukam Singh who lived at house No. 381,

Karkardooma. Hukam Singh accompanied Pushpa Sharma to house No.

271, Karkardooma and intervened in the quarrel. He pushed out the

appellant who was under the influence of liquor and advised him not to

hurl abuses. This resented the appellant and after a few minutes, he went

to the house of the complainant at 381, Karkardooma and confronted him.

At the initial stage, he did not give any injury to Hukam Singh. When the

victim pushed him out of the house, the appellant stuck a single blow on

his chest with a sharp object. He did not harm his wife and son standing

nearby. He did not inflict repeated blows with the sharp object in his

possession. There was no previous history of animosity between the

complainant and the appellant. The crime weapon was an ordinary scissor

or some sharp object whose nature could not be ascertained. PW-16

(Yusuf Khan) denied that this scissor (Ex.P1) was recovered from his

shop at the appellant‟s instance. Nature of injuries was opined „grievous‟

by Dr.Rajesh, Senior Surgeon, who was not examined during trial. In the

MLC (Ex.PW-5/A), depth of the injury was not indicated. Since the

particular opinion has not been proved through the doctor who gave it and

it is unclear on what basis he formed that opinion, it is not safe to hold

that the injuries inflicted by the accused were „grievous‟. The patient was

conscious and oriented when he was taken to hospital for medical

examination. The appellant was under the influence of liquor and injury

was caused in a scuffle. In these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that

the single blow inflicted was with the avowed object or intention to cause

death. The conviction under Section 307 IPC, thus, cannot be sustained

and is altered to Section 324 IPC.

4. Appellant‟s nominal roll dated 06.12.2010 reveals that he

suffered incarceration for six months and fifteen days besides earning

remission for ten days as on 13.08.2001. Nominal roll further reveals that

he was not involved in any other criminal case and had clean antecedents.

His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. He has suffered the ordeal of

trial / appeal for about fifteen years. Considering these mitigating

circumstances, sentence order is modified and the substantive sentence is

reduced to one year. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are

left undisturbed. The appellant shall, however, pay compensation `

50,000/- to the complainant and shall deposit it within fifteen days before

the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall issue notice to the complainant to

receive the compensation.

5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The

appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on 16.01.2014 to

serve out the remaining period of sentence. Trial Court record be sent

back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 09, 2014/tr