Pappu Kumar v. State

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The instant appeal has been filed through jail after availing services of legal aid counsel.

2. Counsel nominated by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee has not appeared at the hearing of the appeal.

3. Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate on the panel of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee is present in Court 2010:DHC:1501-DB and has agreed to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant.

4. We fix the fee of learned counsel in sum of Rs.7,500/-, to be paid by Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

5. With reference to the testimony of Bhoot Nath PW-3 and the testimony of Jagdish PW-4 both of whom deposed that the appellant and the deceased Subhash used to eat and drink together and resided at Bhairon Mandir and that on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th March 2004 after taking food, the two quarreled and during the quarrel the appellant picked up a stone and gave several blows to Subhash, who died as a result of the injuries sustained, appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Subhash and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

6. That Bhoot Nath PW-3 and Jagdish PW-4 were witnesses to the incident has been corroborated through the testimony of Ramesh Chand Yadav PW-8, as per whom at around 10:45 PM on 3.3.2004 Jagdish PW-4 came to his dhaba and informed him that the appellant was beating Subhash and that he i.e. Ramesh Chand Yadav rang up the police control room.

7. We find that the information at the local police station as transmitted by the police control room has been recorded vide DD No.67-B, Ex.PW-30/A at 10:50 PM. We note that as proved by Insp.V.P.Sharma PW-18, he met Bhoot Nath at the place of the crime where he recorded Bhoot Nath’s statement Ex.PW-3/A and after making endorsement Ex.PW- 18/A beneath the statement got the FIR registered. The time of dispatch of the teherir is 1:30 AM on 4.3.2004 i.e. the middle of the night.

8. Having perused the testimony of Bhoot Nath and Jagdish we are satisfied that both of them are truthful witnesses.

9. But, we do not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge that the offence made out is that of murder. We say so for the reason there is no motive for the crime. Everything happened at the spur of the moment. The appellant and the deceased quarreled probably on the issue of who would be sleeping where. What was used as weapon of offence was a stone lying handy.

10. Looking at the post-mortem report of the deceased it can safely be said that the person who inflicted the wounds would be attributed knowledge of a lesser degree i.e. that by his act he is likely to cause death and not knowledge of the higher degree that death would be the inevitable result of the acts.

11. We hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for the same we hold that the appellant should suffer punishment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

12. The appeal is partially allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder is set aside and the appellant is convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for which offence the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.