Delhi High Court
Amarjeet Sahni vs State on 26 November, 2015
Author: Indermeet Kaur
$~R-116
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 20.11.2015
Judgment delivered on : 26.11.2015
+ CRL.A. 1349/2013
AMARJEET SAHNI ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sumeet Verma and Mr. Amit
Kala, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for
the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order
on sentence dated 25.7.2012 and 30.7.2012 respectively wherein the
appellant stood convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. He had
been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine
of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months.
Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. had been granted to the appellant.
2 Nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned. This reflects
that as on date he has completed incarceration of 5 years and about 8
months. His jail conduct is satisfactory.
3 Learned amicus curiae for the appellant at the outset submits that
this is an unfortunate dispute between the husband and wife. No motive
can be attributed to the appellant; the gist of the evidence suggests that
the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment. There is nothing to
suggest that the parties had an estranged relationship earlier. They have
a minor child who is presently being looked after by his grandparents as
his mother (victim) has expired and his father (the appellant) has been
incarcerated. The medical evidence also shows that there is only one
injury which has been suffered by the victim. She had died within hours
of her injury. The weapon of offence was also a kitchen knife. Learned
amicus curiae also submits that he is not arguing on the merits of the
case. His submission is that the conviction of the appellant under
Section 304 Part-I of the IPC is uncalled for. At best only knowledge
could have been attributed to the appellant that by his act he could have
caused the death of the victim; his conviction was covered under Section
304 Part-II of the IPC. Additional submission being that in this
background if his conviction is modified to a conviction under Section
304 Part-II of the IPC, the period of incarceration already suffered by
the appellant be treated as the sentenced imposed upon him.
4 Arguments have been refuted.
5 Record shows that on the fateful day i.e. on the intervening night
of 11-12.5.2011 the unfortunate incident had occurred. The appellant
who was residing as a tenant in X-1/3-4, First Floor, Budh Vihar,
Phase -I, Delhi had a quarrel with his wife pursuant to which she had
suffered a stab injury. The other co-tenants had found the victim
bleeding at about 4.30 a.m.; their minor child was sitting near the body
of the victim and weeping. The appellant was not at the spot.
6 This version as noted supra has been corroborated by Hasina
(PW-1), Urmila (PW-3), Sunil Kumar (PW-4) and Rajesh Kumar
(PW-5). They were all tenants in the house and it has come in the
evidence of PW-4 that on the fateful night when he was sleeping on the
rooftop with his wife as it was summers. Other tenants of the house
were also sleeping on the rooftop. Accused Amarjeet was sleeping with
his wife and his son on the rooftop. At about 1.30-2.00 a.m. the
appellant was forcing his wife downstairs to his room. He was pulling
his wife but she was not interested to go downstairs. The appellant gave
her beating. He forcibly took his wife downstairs; being a family matter
PW-4 did not intervene. At about 4.00 a.m. on hearing noise of PW-1 it
was learnt that the victim was lying injured in a pool of blood. The
appellant was not present there. This version as narrated by PW-4 has
been corroborated by the other witnesses.
7 In the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. his
submission is that he has been falsely implicated. He has admitted that
he was sleeping with his wife on the rooftop and he wanted to have
physical relations with her and had asked her to go downstairs but she
had refused; they had a tiff on this point. The victim got infuriated and
took out a kitchen knife and stabbed herself; the appellant did not take
serious note of her attacking herself at that point of time.
8 The post mortem report which has been proved in the version of
PW-14 (Dr.Manoj Dhingra) indicates that there was a single injury
suffered by the victim which was 1.8 c.m. x 0.9 c.m. which was
obliquely placed caused by a single edge sharp end present on the front
chest midline which was the cause of the death of the victim who had
succumbed to her injuries within hours of the attack.
9 This evidence which has come forth on the record both oral and
documentary does suggest that there was a sudden quarrel between the
parties. There is no other evidence which has been brought to show that
the parties had an estranged relationship. There was a sudden scuffle
between the husband and wife on the fateful day and the appellant had
stabbed her with a kitchen knife. This incident having occurred in the
middle of the night for the reason as stated by PW-4 and corroborated
by the defence of the appellant in his statement recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. this Court is of the view that at best what could be attributed
to the appellant was a knowledge that by his act he could have caused
the death of the victim. This is also for the reason that the weapon of
offence (Ex.PW-19/F) shows that the length of the blade of the knife
was 1.9 c.m. which was a kitchen knife. The injury was deflected and
was obliquely placed on the midline chest cavity of the victim which
had led to her death.
10 Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments has
place reliance upon the following judgments:
i. 2010 (12) Scale Sangharaj Bhogappa Kamble Vs. State of
Mahrarashtra;
ii. 1969 Crl.L.J. 1172 ( Vol. 75. C.N. 322) Latu Mukhi Vs. State
iii. 1992 CRI L.J. 502 Madaiah s. State by Yelandur Police
iv. AIR 1958 Patna 190 (V 45 C 71) Dasrath Paswan Vs. State of
Bihar
11 Section 304 Part-I of the IPC stipulates that the act by the
offender is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. A single injury was
suffered by the victim. The weapon of offence was a kitchen
knife; it was a sudden quarrel which had led to the unfortunate
incident; coupled with the fact that the parties did not have an
estranged relationship prior to the incident reinforces this Court to
hold that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-I
of the IPC should be altered to one under Section 304 Part-II of
the IPC. The conviction of the appellant is accordingly modified.
He is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
12 The appellant has undergone incarceration of 5 years and
almost 8 months. This Court is of the view that the since the
appellant is a first time offender, he being in his mid thirties and
his minor child is now aged about 8 years, interest of justice
demands that the period of incarceration already suffered by the
appellant be treated as the sentence imposed upon him.
Accordingly, appellant be released forthwith if not required in any
other case.
13 Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
14 Trial Court record be sent back.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2015
ndn
