Sheila Devi & Ors vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 7282 Del

$ 22
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
                           DECIDED ON : SEPTEMBER 23, 2015

+                      CRL.REV.P. 217/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.5176/15

       SHEILA DEVI & ORS                             ..... Petitioners
                     Through :           Mr.Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate.

                            VERSUS

       STATE                                          ..... Respondent
                            Through :    Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI
                                         Baljinder Singh, PS Parsad Nagar.

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

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners

to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 02.02.2015 of

learned Additional Sessions Judge by which they were charged for

committing offences under Sections 308/380/427/506/34 IPC. Status

report is on record.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. FIR in question was lodged by an order dated 19.04.13

of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In the

complaint case, it was averred by the complainant that she was residing at

House No.16/893, Ground Floor, H-Block, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh. On

25.07.2012 when she objected to the raising of unauthorized and illegal

construction of a latrine by the petitioners, they gave beatings on her

abdomen, chest, back, hands and arms. She was taken to Lady Harding

Hospital and was medically examined. On 26.07.2012 again the

petitioners quarrelled with her. She was caught hold of by accused Sheela

and other accused Vijay and Ashok inflicted brick blows on her forehead.

She got 7-8 stitches on her forehead. Varun and Priyanka, her grand

children, also sustained injuries. The petitioners also committed theft of

`9,000/- after committing trespass and also caused damage to various

articles.

3. The investigating agency recorded statements of witnesses

conversant with the facts. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-

sheet was filed against the petitioners for committing offences under

Sections 323/308/380/427/506/34 IPC. Since offence under Section 308

IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the

Court of Sessions. After hearing the parties, the impugned order on

charge was passed.

4. To proceed under Section 308 IPC, it is not essential that the

injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient under ordinary

circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court

has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the

intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if one by that

act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting

to murder. If an accused does not intend to cause death or any bodily

injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or even to cause such

bodily injury as is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death, Section 308 IPC would not apply. It depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case whether the accused had the intention to cause

death or knew in the circumstances that his act was going to cause death.

The nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by the accused at the

time of the act, the motive of commission of offence, the nature and size

of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for causing

injuries, severity of the blow or blows and the conduct of the accused are

important factors which may be taken into consideration in coming to a

finding whether in a particular case, the accused can be proceeded under

Section 308 IPC.

5. In the instant case, both the parties were acquainted with each

other and they lived as neighbours in the same vicinity. There was no

history of previous animosity or hostility between them. On 25.07.2012, a

sudden quarrel took place between them on a trivial issue of raising

alleged unauthorized toilet which was objected to by the complainant.

Again on 26.07.2012 quarrel took place between them on the said issue.

In the said quarrel, the complainant sustained injuries on her forehead.

MLC (Annexure-C) reveals that one lacerated wound 3'1 c.m. was found

on the forehead of the victim. Injuries were 'simple'in nature caused by

blunt object. The victim did not need hospitalization and was discharged

on the same day after prescribing certain medicines. Apparently, the

injuries sustained by the victim were not sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. The petitioners were not armed with any deadly

weapons. Only a single blow was allegedly sustained by the victim when

a brick was thrown at her by one of the petitioners in the quarrel that had

taken place all of a sudden without premeditation. No serious injuries

were caused on the vital organ of the victim. Under these circumstances, it

cannot be inferred that injuries were inflicted with the avowed object or

intention to cause death or bodily injury capable of causing death. Merely

because a superficial injury was found on the forehead of the victim, it

cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to commit

culpable homicide. The material before the learned Trial Court was

deficient to attract Section 308 IPC. It was a simple case of scuffle/quarrel

between the parties where injuries were inflicted voluntarily and for that

the assailants can be proceeded for causing hurt under Section 323 IPC.

6. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order

framing charge under Section 308 IPC being unsustainable is set aside.

The Court of competent jurisdiction shall proceed against the petitioners

for commission of other offences under Sections 323/380/427/506/34 IPC

as per law.

7. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record (if any) be

sent back forthwith along with copy of this order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 sa