Delhi HC converts murder charge against life convicts to culpable homicide, says no deliberate attack on single area of ​​body caused death

A division bench of Judge Prathiba M. Singh And Justice Amit Sharma considered appellants’ challenge to the trial court’s order. The trial court had convicted appellant no. 1 and 2 for murder under Section 302 IPC and had sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The appellants/accused worked as guards in a factory at night and slept in the factory. The deceased and the complainant/prosecution witness 3 also worked at the factory as helpers.

The appellants were said to have had previous quarrels with the deceased. On the day of the incident, the appellants were drinking alcohol on the roof of the factory when a quarrel broke out between the appellants and the victim. It was stated that appellant no. I went to his room, took out an iron pipe and hit the body of the deceased. When the deceased ran towards the roof, appellant no. 2 took a pitcher (matka) and hit it on the head of the deceased. The deceased was taken to hospital but was declared “brought dead” by the doctor.

The High Court took note of the testimony of PW-3. While examining it, the Court observed that although the appellant had a previous dispute with the deceased, the incident itself was not premeditated.

During cross-examination of PW-3, he deposed that when the deceased came up the stairs, appellant No.1 and the deceased started arguing. Appellant No.1 kicked and hit the deceased and even the deceased caused injury to Appellant No.1 by using a brick.

The Court noted that the incident took place when the deceased was going up the stairs and the appellants along with PW-3 were coming down the stairs and hence it was not a premeditated encounter.

Regarding the manner in which the fight broke out, the Court observed that the appellant did not have a weapon beforehand. It was only after the fight started that appellant No. 1 picked up an iron pipe and hit the victim. Appellant No.2 hit the deceased with a pitcher (matka) on the roof which ultimately caused his death.

The Court observed: “The manner in which the incident occurred shows there was no premeditation and there was a sudden provocation on the staircase when they had a chance encounter.”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court case Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of AP (AIR 2006 SC 3010), where it was observed that “intent” to cause death within the meaning of Section 302 of the IPC can be determined by factors such as the nature of the weapon used, whether it was taken from the spot, whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body, if the act was during a sudden quarrel or fight or if the incident occurred without any premeditation.

Here, the Court noted that the trial court misinterpreted the manner in which the decedent’s death was caused. She said the trial court wrongly concluded that there was no sudden quarrel and that the incident did not happen by chance.

He noted that the picking of the iron bar by appellant no. 1 was due to sudden provocation. He noticed, “The fact that the deceased used the brick against appellant no.1 would also show that the fact that appellant no.1 picked up the iron bar was also due to sudden provocation and may also be due to anger in a drunken state. condition.”

The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013 AIR SCW 3153), where it was observed that whenever there was a sudden fight without premeditation, it would fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and could not be held to be an offense under Section 302.

Here, the Court noted that the autopsy report shows that the injuries were inflicted on the head, back and neck. He noted that the report does not demonstrate that there were “deliberate blows” to only one area of ​​the deceased’s body to cause death. She stated that the appellant hit the victim in a fit of anger and did not intend to cause the victim’s death.

Thus, holding that there was no premeditation to cause death, the Court converted the conviction of the appellants to Section 304, Part II of the IPC.

Appellant No. 1 and 2 had undergone approximately 9 years and 8 years of incarceration respectively. The Court modified their sentence to the period already served.

Case title: RAJARAM v. STATE OF NCT DELHI (CRL.A. 482/2024 & CRL.M.(LEASE) 872/2024 & Related Matters)

Counsel for the appellants: Mr. Nitin Saluja, Mr. Harsh Gattani, Mr. Anubhav Singh, Mr. Nischal Tripathi and Ms. Arundhati Katju with Ms. Ritika Meena and Ms. Spriha Pachauri

State Adviser: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP with Insp. Bijay Kumar, Inspector. Vivek Anand PS Bawana

Click here to read/download the order