Brief Facts
- Rahul (PW-1) and Sachin (deceased) had pre-existing disputes with Sunil @ Sonu (Accused No. 1) and Satish (Accused No. 2). On 28th November, 2016, the Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2, Gaurav (Accused No. 3) and Nitin @ Devender (Accused No. 4) abused PW-1 and the deceased. The accused persons attacked PW-1 and the deceased with a knife. Subsequently, based upon the written statement of Rahul, an FIR was registered against three out of the four accused persons for offences punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34, IPC. After the death of Sachin, the charge was converted to offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC.
- Ld. Session Court, Delhi convicted the Appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the same was upheld by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Court should interfere in the concurrently finding passed by the Ld. Trial Court and the High Court, upon correct appreciation of evidence, found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the Appellate Court can reduce or alter the conviction for the offence
punishable u/s 302 of IPC given by the Ld. Trial Court and upheld by the High Court?
Held
- The Apex Court partly allowed the Appeal as the conviction of the appellants was modified from Section 302 of IPC to part I of Section 304 of IPC. Appellants were released on sentence undergone. The Apex Court took into consideration the doubtful conduct of PW-1, Cross FIR lodged by Appellants, nature of injuries caused to the Accused Appellants and also the delay in lodging the FIR so as to modify the conviction.
- The defence of the accused persons is specific that, it is the deceased Sachin and Rahul (PW-1) had come in a drunken condition at the shop of Satish and they started abusing and assaulting the appellants. The evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-19) would reveal that when he visited the BJRM Hospital on 28th November 2016, he found not only deceased Sachin but also found all the accused persons admitted in the said hospital. He has also admitted that he did not find Rahul (PW-1) in the said hospital.
- It can thus clearly be seen that the defence of the appellants is a possible defence. There is a possibility of deceased Sachin and Rahul (PW-1) coming to the shop of Satish and a fight taking place between the two groups. There is nothing on record to establish that there was any pre-meditation. As such, we find that the possibility of the offence being committed by the appellants without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 15,16,17,18