STATE Vs. KULDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State seeks leave to appeal through this Petition, against the judgment and order dated 04.05.2011, of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, in SC No.09/2009 acquitting the respondents (hereafter referred to by the names, i.e. Kuldeep and his father Sohan Lal, the accused). The respondents were arrayed as accused and charged with having committed offences punishable under Section-304/34 IPC. The impugned judgment acquitted them.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that one Ravinder Kumar, son of the accused Sohan Lal had married Alka, PW-1. It was alleged that Alka's relationship with her brother-in-law Kuldeep was not smooth and he used to allegedly abuse and threaten her. PW-1 complained to her parents. Consequently, on 22.10.2008, her father Mangat Ram, ("the deceased"), with her brother Jai Singh, PW-17 and Rajesh, a cousin (PW-18) went to Alka's matrimonial home. It was alleged that Sohan Lal started abusing the complainants; Kuldeep, who was not in the premises, reached there and joined his father in abusing Alka and her relatives. It was alleged that Sohan Lal caught hold of the deceased from the waist and Kuldeep pressed his neck and showered fist blows on his chest. It was alleged that PW-17 and 18, who accompanied Mangat Ram were restrained by others, who belonged to Village Rajokri, where the accused lived. In the meanwhile, Mangat Ram fell down; PW-17 freed himself with difficulty and attempted to rescue his father. Mangat Ram became unconscious. PW-17 and 18 took Mangat Ram to Deepan Hospital along with Alka, PW-1 where he was declared "brought dead". The first information, a DD entry was intimated at 12.28 PM on 22.10.2008, i.e. Ex.PW-12/A; it was conveyed to PS Vasant Kunj. The PCR van reached there and intimation was sent to Control Room. The complaint was recorded as Ex.PW-17/A on which the FIR, Ex.PW-6/A was lodged. The IO visited the spot and seized several samples relevant for the case. The complainant had alleged that the accused knew fully well that the deceased was suffering from heart ailments and nevertheless showered fist blows on him. Some medical records pertaining to the deceased were also seized. The accused were arrested.

(3.) THIS Court has carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the State, which seeks leave to appeal, contending that the collective testimonies of the eye-witnesses categorically pointed to knowledge on the part of the accused about Mangat Ram's pre-existing medical condition. Thus, their assault had to be understood as part of the intention to commit the offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC.