Delhi High Court
Maharaj Haider vs State on 4 February, 2016
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~R-20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: February 04, 2016
+ CRL.A. 502/2000
MAHARAJ HAIDER ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The time was 8:30 PM and the date was March 13, 1994. The place
was the weekly Sunday Bazaar at Nangal Dairy. The appellant Maharaj
Haider, one Mohd.Ismile, one Mumtaz Begum and one Mehrunisa were
sucked into an altercation with the deceased, origin whereof was a week
prior when Mumtaz Begum and Mehrunisa purchased a pair of chappals
each from Phool Kumar PW-14 and returning to Phool Kumar's place of
business at the weekly bazaar to return the chappals informing that they
were substandard. Mohan Pal PW-2 vending his wares next to Phool Kumar
detecting that the chappals had been used, and hence prompting Phool
Kumar not to replace the chappals, resulting in a remonstration between the
two ladies, Phool Kumar and Mohan Pal, attracting appellant Maharaj
Haider and Mohd.Ismile to the vending site of Phool Kumar, because the
two resided nearby in a jhuggi. The two requested Phool Kumar and Mohan
Pal to replace the chappals sold by Phool Kumar to Mumtaz Begum and
Mehrunisa and the two gentlemen refusing. The deceased Vimal Kumar,
brother of Mohan Pal, who also used to vend wares at the weekly market
intervened. The remonstration turned sour. There was jostling. Vimal
Kumar picked up a 'thapi : a wooden bat shaped object' to facilitate
washing of clothes, and hit Maharaj Haider on the head, who seething in
anger ran to his jhuggi nearby and returned with a meat chopping knife to
inflict one solitary blow on Vimal, which unfortunately pierced the heart of
Vimal causing his death.
2. These undisputed facts have emerged through the testimony of
Subhash Chandra PW-1, Mohan Pal PW-2, Ram Kishan PW-4, Yashpal
PW-5 and Phool Kumar PW-14.
3. We have been taken through the testimony of the five eye witnesses
who saw the incident and regarding their presence being natural, learned
counsel for the appellant has nothing to argue, because each one of them
used to vend wares at the weekly bazaar. With the usual variations, which
are expected when five people give account of the same incident, nothing
emerges to discredit the testimony of any of the five eye witnesses.
4. That the deceased died on account of a knife blow inflicted on his
chest is not in dispute.
5. The only issue which needs our attention is : whether the act
committed by the appellant would be murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
6. Before the learned Trial Judge the argument was that the testimony of
the witnesses shows that the deceased Vimal hit the appellant with a thapi
and therefore the appellant acted in self defence, a plea which was rightly
rejected by the learned Trial Judge. The testimony of the witnesses show
that after Vimal hit him with a thapi, the appellant went to his jhuggi and
returned with a knife and stabbed Vimal.
7. From the testimony of the witnesses it emerges that the jhuggi in
which the appellant and Mohd.Ismile were residing was near the place
where Phool Kumar used to sell chappals at the weekly market, because all
of them have deposed that when Mumtaz Begum and Mehrunisa were
arguing with Phool Kumar the loud and shrill dialogues attracted the
appellant and Mohd.Ismile and the two told Phool Kumar to replace the
chappals he had sold the previous week to Mumtaz Begum and Mehrunisa.
This is crucial for the reason the testimony of the witnesses shows that the
deceased intervened when Phool Kumar, assisted by Mohan Pal refused to
replace the chappals and since appellant and Mohd.Ismile were taking the
side of the two ladies, Vimal intervened and hit the appellant with a thapi,
which would naturally give birth to anger in the mind of the appellant and
would make him propel to likewise arm himself to hit back; his jhuggi being
at an arm's distance, having hardly any time to cool, within seconds go and
come back from the jhuggi; armed with a handy object. It is apparent that
when the heat of the passion, occasioned by the events of the moment was
on, the appellant did the offending act.
8. This aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the learned Trial
Judge.
9. We dispose of the appeal modifying appellant's conviction from the
offence of murder to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and noting that
when appellant was admitted to bail by this Court he had already undergone
a sentence of 6 years and had earned a remission of 6 months, we sentence
him to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone.
10. In view of the appeal being partially allowed the bail bond and surety
bond furnished by the appellant are discharged.
11. Trial Court Record be returned.
12. Copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar
for updation of the jail record.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 04, 2016
mamta
