Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on September 24, 2024 set aside the murder conviction of two persons and instead found them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Court ordered their release, as they had already served over eight years in prison without remission.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan partly allowed an appeal filed by one Sunil alias Sonu and Nitin alias Devender against the Delhi High Court's judgment passed in 2017 which upheld the Rohini court's order holding the appellants guilty of murder and sentencing them to life term.

"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," the bench said.

The court noted that all the accused persons were medically examined and had received injuries in the incident.

"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," the bench pointed out.

It was alleged the accused had stabbed and assaulted Sachin on November 28, 2016, due to a pre-existing dispute. He died on December 2, 2016. Charges were framed against the accused persons Satish alias Chhotu and Gaurav Kumar for offences punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the present appellants were charged for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

In their arguments, the counsel for the appellants submitted that with respect to the same incident, a cross FIR was already registered by the appellant Sunil alias Sonu on November 29, 2016, which was much prior in point of time. They submitted that in the said incident, both the appellants Sunil alias Sonu and Nitin alias Devender had received severe injuries. 

They claimed that both the courts below had failed to take into consideration that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants. 

They contended that since the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants, the prosecution had suppressed the real genesis of the incident. So, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could not be held sustainable and the same would be at the most under Part-I or Part - II of Section 304 IPC, they argued.

The state counsel, on the contrary, said that the trial court and the high court had concurrently, upon correct appreciation of evidence, found that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence warranted no interference.

Going by the prosecution and the medical evidence, the top court said, "We find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries which were sustained by deceased Sachin were caused by the appellants and injury No. 13 was sufficient to cause death of deceased Sachin. As such, we find that no interference would be warranted with the finding of the trial court and the High Court that the appellants have caused homicidal death of deceased Sachin."

The court, however, noted, that though the incident was alleged to have taken place on the night of November 28, 2016, the FIR was lodged on November 30, 2016, i.e. after more than 24 hours. 

Though Rahul, the prosecution witness has tried to give an explanation that after he had been taken to BJRM Hospital, he left the said hospital in order to search for his friend deceased Sachin and thereafter he fell unconscious; the said explanation does not appear to be plausible inasmuch as the record would show that deceased Sachin had already been taken to BJRM Hospital. If that be so, then the conduct of Rahul (PW-1) in leaving the BJRM Hospital in search of deceased Sachin appears to be strange, the bench said.

It can further be seen that, though in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, Rahul (PW-1) admitted that he and deceased Sachin had consumed liquor, he has denied the same in his cross-examination. Rahul (PW-1) has admitted that there is one case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC with respect to the present incident, the bench noted.

The court also found that though in his examination-in-chief, Rahul (PW-1) tried to give explanation that he could not lodge the FIR expeditiously since he fell unconscious, he admitted in his cross-examination that he regained consciousness in the morning of the next day. Then the question is what prevented him from lodging the FIR till 21:15 hours. 

In the FIR lodged at the instance of appellant Sunil alias Sonu, it is stated that Rahul (PW-1) and deceased had come to the shop of Satish in a heavily drunken condition, and they had tried to assault the appellants. The medical certificates of appellants Sunil alias Sonu and Nitin alias Devender would show that they had sustained the injuries, court highlighted.

"Undisputedly, the said injuries are not explained by the prosecution. 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 bench observed.

Court, thus, opined that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, and declared that the present case would be covered under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC and as such, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC would not be tenable.

Case Title: Sunil @ Sonu Etc Vs State NCT of Delhi