Delhi High Court
Ravi Kumar Meena vs State on 29 September, 2014
$~5 & 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: September 29, 2014
+ CRL.A. 408/2014
RAVI KUMAR MEENA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate
with Mr.Amit Kala, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP
CRL.A. 1075/2014
STATE ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP
versus
RAVI KUMAR MEENA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate
with Mr.Amit Kala, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. At about 8:50 PM on March 23, 2009, the duty officer at PS Anand
Parbat recorded information conveyed by L/Ct.Anuradha from the Police
Control Room that ringing up the number 100, information was given that at
Street No.8 Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat during a quarrel stabbing has taken
place.
2. Recorded in the daily diary at number 74B, Ex.PW-11/A, copy of the
daily diary entry was handed over by the duty officer to SI Sultan Singh
PW-11, who accompanied by Ct.Pawan PW-6, left the police station and
reached street No.8 and learnt that stabbing incident had taken place on the
street outside house No.284, Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat. One Beni Prasad
@ Guddu PW-18 met the two police officers at the spot and handed over the
appellant Ravi Kumar Meena and produced the knife Ex.P-1, informing the
two police officers that two persons named Santosh and Suraj Bhan had
apprehended the appellant who was flashing a knife.
3. In the meanwhile Dhrupad PW-15, uncle of the person who was
stabbed - Anil, had taken Anil to Hindu Rao Hospital where Dr.Anamica
Dhawan recorded MLC Ex.PW-20/A concerning Anil. She recorded
therein that Dhrupad had brought Anil to the emergency of Hindu Rao
Hospital at 9.30 P.M. on March 23, 2009. Anil was dead by the time he was
brought to the hospital.
4. The duty officer at Hindu Rao Hospital conveyed information to PS
Anand Parbat that at 10.00 P.M. Anil s/o Rampati, resident of 284/Q, Gali
No.8, Nehru Nagar had been brought by his uncle Dhrupad to the
emergency of the hospital where Anil was declared dead. The same was
entered in the daily diary vide DD No.77B, Ex.PW-2/D by H.Ct.Ranbir
Singh PW-2, the duty officer at P.S. Anand Parbat.
5. DD No.77B was handed over to SI Zora Singh PW-12 for
investigation. Accompanied by Ct.Yoginder PW-8, he reached Hindu Rao
Hospital where he met Santosh PW-3, Adalat PW-17 and Dhrupad PW-15.
The three claimed to be the eye witness. He recorded Santosh's statement
Ex.PW-3/A and got recorded the FIR Ex.PW-2/A.
6. At the trial SI Sultan Singh PW-11 and Ct.Pawan PW-6 proved that
Beni Prasad @ Guddu PW-18 had handed over Ravi Kumar Meena to them
and had produced the knife Ex.P-1. Beni Prasad @ Guddu PW-18 has
corroborated the said two police officers and thus we have proof that the
appellant was apprehended at the spot and the knife Ex.P-1 was recovered
from him.
7. The sketch Ex.PW-21/B of the knife would show that it is an ordinary
kitchen knife, albeit with a slightly thicker base of the blade. The length of
the blade is 10.5 cm i.e. just a little over four inches. It has a handle of 10
cm length. At base of the blade the width is 4.5 cm and it tapers to form a
pointed point at the tip.
8. No use noting in detail the testimony of Suraj Bhan PW-10, the
hostile eye witness, Santosh Kumar PW-3, Dhrupad Ram PW-15, Adalat
Ram PW-17 and Beni Prashad PW-15 for the reason after going through
their testimony learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the
prosecution has proved that the appellant had stabbed the deceased Anil and
was caught at the spot and given a beating evidenced by appellant's MLC
Ex.PW-22/F drawn up at Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital at 9:45 PM on
the date of the incident. The appellant had a clear lacerated wound in the
occipital region and a second on the back of the scalp; injuries which he
received when he was beaten by the public.
9. The testimony of the eye witnesses would bring out that on the
exhortation of Gopal Singh PW-14 who was in the company of the
appellant, when both were collecting payments for the cable T.V. services
provided by Gopal Singh, the deceased happened to pass by and as his
elbow struck the receipt book in appellant's hand the receipt book fell on the
ground. Appellant abused Anil who apologized. Gopal exhorted 'nikaal
chaku or maar'. Ravi took out the knife Ex.P-1 and gave two stab wounds
on the person of Anil, unfortunately in the chest and the stomach region
resulting in death of Anil because the first stab pierced the pericardial sac
and punctured the right ventricle of the heart.
10. A word needs to be spoken about Gopal being cited as a witness of
the prosecution.
11. Notwithstanding in Santosh's statement Ex.PW-3/A, there being a
reference to two persons, the Investigating Officer did not investigate who
that other person was. Only appellant was sent for trial.
12. But after Gopal had been examined as PW-14, the vigilant Additional
Sessions Judge detected that the eye witnesses were speaking of appellant
being accomplice of Gopal and gave Gopal's role in the commission of the
offence and thus by an order dated April 11, 2012 it was directed that Gopal
should be arrested and charged. By that time evidence had been recorded in
the instant case, thus trial of Gopal was separated. The explanation given by
the Investigating Officer that nobody named Gopal, has been negated by the
learned Judge noting that the Investigating Officer could give no
justification as to why he did not try to find out who was the second person
when in the statement Ex.PW-3/A, Santosh Kumar had at the very first
moment when the police met him spoken of two persons.
13. Be that as it may, as regards the appellant there is irrefutable evidence
that it was he, who on the exhortation of Gopal, stabbed Anil.
14. The question would be : Whether the act of the appellant constitutes
the offence of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder and
punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC.
15. In the appeal filed by the State it is urged that the offence is murder.
In the appeal filed by Gopal, he claims that the offence is of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
16. From the testimony of the eye witnesses it emerges that there was no
previous enmity. The appellant did not act with premeditation. It happened
at the spur of the moment. As Anil jostled past the appellant, and as his
elbow struck the hand of the appellant, the receipt book in the hand of the
appellant fell down. The appellant abused Anil, who apologized. But, on
Gopal's - the employer's exhortation, the appellant who was carrying a
kitchen knife stabbed Anil. The argument of learned counsel for the State
that why was the appellant carrying a knife, other than with the intention of
using it to kill, needs to be noted and rejected for the reason the testimony of
the witnesses brings out that the appellant and Gopal were collecting money
from those who had taken cable connections from Gopal and it is not
unusual that customers make grievances of the images on the television not
being clear and since money has to be collected, the person concerned - for
the purposes of cleaning and chiselling here and there the cables, carrying a
knife, a pier or any other instrument/implement.
17. Both appeals fail and are dismissed.
18. Appellant's conviction for the offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and the sentence imposed to undergo RI for 10 years
and pay fine in sum of `10,000/- is confirmed.
19. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
his record and to be supplied to Ravi Kumar.
20. TCR be returned.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
mamta
