RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.01.2011 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections-302/323/34, IPC as well as the order dated 28.01.2011 sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment along with fine.

(2.) THE prosecution's case is that on 2.11.2008 in the late evening around 10/10:30- 10:45 pm, in front of plot No.18/38, Gali No.5, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, the present appellants and one Darshan (the third co-accused, who is not a party to the present appeal) had inflicted injuries on Shanker (hereafter referred to as deceased) with iron rod "saria". In this case, the FIR was registered at PS Sarai Rohilla on an intimation received about the attack, by the police. THE prosecution relied principally on the eye witnesses testimonies of PW-3 and 4 i.e. the brother and wife of the deceased, who died without recovering from the coma, caused as a result of the injuries suffered by him, on 04.11.2008. THE prosecution also relied upon the testimony of PW-5, in support of its case about the recovery of sarias, the murder weapons in this case. After the arrest of the accused, the charge-sheet was initially filed under Section-304 read with 323/34, IPC. THE Trial Court after considering the materials on record, framed charges under Sections- 302/323/34, IPC. THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After due consideration of the material on record, which included, the testimonies of the witnesses and the material exhibits, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused for the offences they were charged with, beyond reasonable doubt and handed down the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) IT was alternatively urged by the learned counsel without prejudice to his other submissions that even if the prosecution's story were to be believed and the Trial Court's findings on the facts were to be sustained, the conviction under Section-302, IPC, in the present case, was not justified. IT was urged that the evidence, including the testimony of PW-9, reveal that even though there were four injuries on the deceased, the solitary injury on the head was the result of the single iron rod blow. Not all of the appellants could have been responsible for this. Counsel urged that in the case of such proven facts, the Court ought to have taken recourse to the exceptions under Section-300 and concluded that the appellants were guilty for the offences punishable under Section-304, Part-I, IPC, since at best, what was proven, was the infliction of the injury which could have caused death in the ordinary course of nature. IT was further emphasized that PW-9 as well as the postmortem report Ex.PW-6/A do not mention that the injuries were the cause of death or that they would have ordinarily resulted in the death of the deceased. On the other hand, the cause of death was cardiac arrest which could have been the result of the injuries.