VIJENDRA KUMAR ALIAS VIJAY Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the light of the limited notice that had been issued by this Court with regard to the nature of the offence on 29th July, 2009, only the bare facts pertaining to the case are necessary.

(2.) Yogesh, the deceased was employed as a Helper in a bus owned by the appellant's father. He was suspected of misappropriating a part of the fare that was being collected by him from passengers. On the 9th of April, 2002, when the bus was parked at the Karampura bus terminal, Delhi, the appellant questioned the deceased to find out if a part of the fare had been withheld by him, but the deceased answered in the negative. The appellant, however, remained unconvinced. He, therefore, subjected the deceased to a personal search which resulted in the recovery of an amount of Rs. 100/-from his person. The appellant got furious and started beating the deceased. The deceased protested whereupon the appellant brought a knife from the boot of his scooter parked nearby and caused one injury with the knife in the abdomen of the deceased. The bus crew and the passengers advised the appellant to remove the deceased, who was then in a critical condition, to the hospital. The appellant thereupon assisted by one, Kanhaiya took the injured on a two-wheeler to a private clinic but he was advised to take him to a hospital. The appellant, accordingly, took the injured to the ESI Hospital and got him admitted at that place. The appellant also informed the attending doctor that he had found the injured lying unconscious on the roadside and as a good Samaritan had brought him to the hospital after having picked him from there. The Duty Constable at the ESI Hospital informed the police station regarding the admission of the injured on which Sub Inspector D.P. Kajala reached the hospital and found that the injured was unfit to make a statement... A case under Section 307 of the IPC came to be registered against unknown persons. Yogesh died later that day in the ESI Hospital and the case was modified to one under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court found that all the eye witnesses had not supported the prosecution but relying on the circumstantial evidence convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. An appeal taken to the High Court was also dismissed.

(3.) The present appeal by way of special leave is limited to the nature of the offence only on the understanding that as per the case of the appellant the case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.