SACHIN @ AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and order of ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 304 -II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 01.08.2007 at about 10.30 P.M., the appellant had assaulted one Dharamvir (herein after, "the deceased") with a cycle tube, under the influence of alcohol and threw him on the road, as a result of which Dharamvir sustained injuries on his head and subsequently passed away after being treated in RML Hospital for ten days. The incident was reported to the police by an eye witness Ravi Gupta (PW -3), who was deployed as a security guard in the Pahar Ganj area where the appellant and the deceased used to reside and work as rickshaw pullers and the incident took place. After registration of FIR and completion of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and site plan was prepared. The doctor who conducted the autopsy of the deceased opined that the death occurred due to ante -mortem head injury. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellant and he was convicted by ld. ASJ vide the impugned judgment passed on 11.10.2010 which has been challenged by way of present appeal.

(2.) THE main grievance of the appellant is that even if the prosecution version is to be believed then at the most the case of causing grievous hurt is made out against him and not culpable homicide for which he is convicted as the victim passed away after receiving medical treatment for 10 days which clearly indicates that his death was a result of medical negligence and not of injuries sustained by him in the scuffle with the appellant. It is stated that the medical reports established that the blood had deposited in the brain of the deceased and his death was a consequence of the failure of the doctors' to drain it out and the appellant cannot be held guilty for the death of the deceased. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the name of the appellant was nowhere mentioned in the D.D. entry and also the MLC which were prepared and that his name was later on maliciously inserted to frame him and all these facts have been sidelined by the Ld. trial Court and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on these grounds.

(3.) I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.