Delhi HC Converts Murder Charge Of Life Convicts To Culpable Homicide, Says No Deliberate Attack In Only One Area Of Body To Cause Death

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma were considering the appellants' challenge to the Trial Court's order. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant no. 1 & 2 for murder under Section 302 IPC and had sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

The appellants/accused worked as guards at a factory during nighttime and used to sleep at the factory. The deceased and the complainant/Prosecution Witness-3 also worked at the factory as helpers.

The appellants were stated to have previous quarrels with the deceased. On the date of the incident, the appellants were allegedly consuming liquor on the roof of the factory when a quarrel broke out between the appellants and the deceased. It was stated that appellant no. 1 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 the hospital but was declared 'brought dead' by the doctor.

The High Court took note of PW-3's testimony. Perusing it, the Court observed that even though the appellant had a previous dispute with the deceased, the incident itself was not premeditated.

In PW-3's cross-examination, he stated that when the deceased came up the staircase, the appellant no.1 and the deceased started quarrelling. The appellant no.1 gave kicks and blows to the deceased and even the deceased caused some injuries on appellant no.1 by using a brick.

The Court noted that the incident occurred when the deceased was coming up the staircase and the appellants along with PW-3 were walking down the staircase and thus it was not a premeditated meeting which took place.

On 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 broke out, the appellant no.1 picked up an iron pipe and hit the deceased. The appellant no. 2 hit the deceased with a pitcher (matka) on the roof, which finally caused his death.

The Court remarked, “The manner in which the incident had itself occurred shows that there was no premeditation and there was a sudden provocation on the staircase when they had a chance meeting.”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P (AIR 2006 SC 3010), where it was observed that 'intention' to cause death under Section 302 IPC can be determined by factors including nature of the weapon used, whether it was picked from spot, whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body, whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or fight or whether the incident occurred without any premeditation.

Here, the Court noted that the Trial Court misinterpreted the manner in which the death of the deceased was caused. It stated that the Trial Court wrongly concluded that there was no sudden quarrel and that the incident did not occur by chance.

It noted that the picking of the iron rod by appellant no. 1 was due to sudden provocation. It remarked, “The fact that the deceased had used the brick against the Appellant No.1 would also show that the picking up of the iron rod by the Appellant No.1 was also due to a sudden provocation and may be also due to anger in an intoxicating condition.”

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

Here, the Court noted that the post-mortem report shows that the injuries had been inflicted on the head, back and neck. It noted that the report does not show that there was 'deliberate hitting' only in one area of the body of the deceased to cause death. It stated that the appellant hit the deceased in a fit of anger and did not intend to cause the death of the deceased.

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

The appellant no. 1 & 2 had undergone around 9 years and 8 years of incarceration respectively. The Court modified their sentencing to the period already undergone.

Case title: RAJARAM vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (CRL.A. 482/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 872/2024 & Connected matter)

Counsel for 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

Counsel for State: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP with Insp. Bijay Kumar, Insp. Vivek Anand PS Bawana

Click Here To Read/Download Order