Delhi High Court
Raj [email protected] Raju & Ors. vs State on 18 May, 2015
$~R-46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. A. No. 343/2011
Decided on 18th May, 2015
RAJ KUMAR @ RAJU & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Jitendra Kr. Dhingra, Adv. with
appellants in person
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP along with
SI Yogesh , P.S. Timarpur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellants have been convicted under Section 308/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (the Code, for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years each with fine of `10,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months.
2. Aggrieved by their conviction as also the sentences handed down to
them by the trial court, appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. Appellant nos. 1 to 3 are real brothers. Appellant no. 4 was the tenant
of appellant nos. 1 to 3 at the relevant time. Injured persons namely, Deepak
Shukla, Dinkar Shukla, Panna Lal and Kiran Shukla are neighbours of
appellants. Dinkar Shukla, Panna Lal and Kiran Shukla are brother, father
and sister-in-law of Deepak Shukla. FIR No.224/2008 was registered at
Police Station Timarpur under Sections 308/323/325/34 of the Code, on the
complaint of Deepak Shukla. He alleged in the FIR that on 6 th May, 2008,
at about 7 AM, he was sitting in his veranda when appellant no. 3 picked up
a quarrel with him on the pretext that he had misbehaved with his nephew,
namely, Hunny and slapped him. Appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 also arrived
there and gave beatings to him by the dandas which they were having in
their hands. When Dinkar Shukla, Panna Lal and Kiran Shukla intervened,
they were also beaten by the appellants. In the quarrel, appellant no. 3 also
gave a bottle blow on the head of Panna Lal.
4. PW1 Deepak Shukla, PW2 Geeta, PW5 Dinkar Shukla and PW6
Panna Lal have corroborated the version as contained in the FIR. Their
depositions on material points have remained unshaken in their cross-
examination, that is, about extending beatings by the appellants to them.
Trial court has found their statements to be trustworthy and reliable. I have
also perused their statements and find them to be trustworthy and reliable
witnesses and am of the view that trial court has rightly accepted their
versions to conclude that appellants, in furtherance to their common
intention, had assaulted Deepak Shukla, Dinkar Shukla, Panna Lal and Kiran
Shukla by dandas after a verbal duel ensued between the appellant no.3 and
Deepak Shukla on a trivial issue. During the course of hearing, learned
counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any material discrepancy in
their statements so as to make them unreliable and untrustworthy.
Prosecution has succeeded in proving that appellants had assaulted the
above-named persons in furtherance to their common intentions.
5. The next question, which needs attention of this Court, is whether
ingredients of offence under Section 308 of the Code are attracted in the
facts of this case. A perusal of MLC of the injured persons makes it clear
that except Panna Lal, all other injured have received simple injuries.
Injuries of Panna Lal have been opined to be grievous in view of the fracture
sustained by him in his forearm, which is not a vital part of the body. Such
an injury is not likely to result in death of a person.
6. Section 308 of the Code stipulates that whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that
act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. Intention and knowledge has to be gathered from the nature of
injuries and also the circumstances in which such injuries are caused by the
accused. In this case, a quarrel erupted between the neighbours all of a
sudden on the ground that Deepak (complainant) scolded the nephew of
appellant no. 3 and son of appellant no. 1. In fact, a verbal altercation
resulted in the physical fight, wherein appellants, appear to have assaulted
the other injured persons in a rush of blood. Assault was not premeditated
nor predetermined. Nature of injuries as also the circumstances in which
injuries have been caused by the appellants do not disclose intention or
knowledge on their part to cause culpable homicide.
7. In Bishan Singh and Anr. Vs. The State, AIR 2008 SC 131, Supreme
has held as under:-
"Before an accused can be held to be guilty under
Section 308 IPC, it was necessary to arrive at a finding
that the ingredients thereof, namely, requisite intention or
knowledge was existing. There cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that such an intention or knowledge on the
part of the accused to cause culpable homicide is required
to be proved. Six persons allegedly accosted the injured.
They had previous enmity. Although overt-act had been
attributed against each of the accused who were having
lahtis, only seven injuries had been caused and out of
them only one of them was grievous, being a fracture on
the arm, which was not the vital part of the body".
8. For the foregoing discussions, conviction of the appellants is altered
to Sections 325/34 of the Code as regards their act of voluntarily causing
grievous hurt to Panna Lal is concerned and under Section 323/34 of the
Code with regard to their causing simple injuries to other injured persons.
Accordingly, appellants are convicted under Sections 323/325/34 of the
Code.
9. Appellants have remained in judicial custody for about a month. They
have no past criminal records. Appellants have also not indulged
themselves in any other crime post this case though they have remained on
bail during the trial as also during the pendency of the appeal. Incident took
place six years ago. Keeping in mind the totality of circumstances, while
reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already
undergone by them, sentence of fine is increased to `35,000/- by each of the
appellants and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one year each. Fine of `10,000/- is stated to have been
deposited by each of the appellants. Let remaining amount of `25,000/- be
deposited by each of the appellants before the trial court within six weeks. It
is made clear that out of the fine so deposited, `25,000/- be released by the
trial court to each of the injured persons, namely, Deepak Shukla, Dinkar
Shukla, Panna Lal and Kiran Shukla towards compensation to them.
10. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
MAY 18, 2015
ga
