SATYAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order on sentence of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 06.07.2009 and 11.07.2009 respectively in which the present appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that during the late evening of 21.04.2006 an altercation took place between the four accused Sumit, Gopinath, Satyam @ Sachin, Amit and the deceased. THE accused as well as the deceased used to sell chicken at Block No. 17, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. It was alleged that two days prior to the incident, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had visited the premises and impounded certain articles which belonged to both the parties. Apparently, both the parties went together and got the articles released. Subsequently, alleged the prosecution, in the evening of 21.04.2006, the quarrel occurred. THE accused alleged that Naresh, the deceased had wrongly kept a wooden log piece which belonged to them. THE quarrel took a sudden turn and it was alleged that in the course of the altercation, Amit took out a knife and delivered a knife blow to Naresh. It was also alleged that the co-accused, Satyam @ Sachin assisted in the attack and caught hold of the deceased. THE prosecution alleged that the incident was witnessed by Naresh's brother - Sanjay, PW-17 and Rakesh, PW-11, his brother-in-law. After receiving information, the police carried-on the investigation, during the course of which the accused were arrested. One of them, i.e. Sumit, being a juvenile, was sent to the competent authority, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). During the course of trial, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of 19 witnesses, besides other evidence, such as the Postmortem Report, Seizure Memos, knife Ex.PW-1 etc. After consideration of these, the Trial Court returned the finding of guilty as far as two appellants before this Court is concerned; Gopinath, the co-accused was acquitted. THE prosecution had attributed his role as one of facilitating the attack by catching hold of the complainant, PW-17.

(3.) IN this case, the Postmortem Report (Ex.PW-15/A) (death examination) states that a single stab injury of 2.3 x 0.7 cm was discerned, placed horizontally on the right side of chest on the fifth intercoastal muscle. Apparently, the depth of the knife injury was 14 cms, which affected the liver and also the diaphragm. No doubt the injury was serious and was the cause of death. The nature of the injury and the fact that it caused death almost instantaneously, however, is not determinative of whether the offence under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 IPC was made. The authorities, particularly, Tholan (supra) and Hem Raj (supra) referred to above have listed-out elaborately the previous authorities. Hem Raj (supra) has discussed all the previous judgments till the point of time, including those concerning death as a result of single knife injury. IN this case too, the placement of the injury was on the right side of the chest. Of course, it was sufficiently deep as to result in death. We also notice that Amit was holding the knife when the quarrel started and, therefore, used it. The knife was a work tool for both Amit as well as his relatives. Having regard to all these circumstances and the fact that the accused also received injuries during what was apparently an altercation (as collective reading of deposition of PW-14 would suggest), this Court is of the opinion that the offence proved against the appellants in this case is Section-304 Part-I/34 IPC.