RAMESH Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated 22.10.2009 vide which Appellant was held guilty of offences under Sections 302/397/307 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 and order of sentence dated 27.10.2009 vide which he was sentenced as under:-

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case emerging from the record is that on 22.6.2003 at about 12.45 p.m. behind Subzi Mandi Ghazipur, Delhi, the Appellant snatched a bag from the possession of Sudhir Munim working at Aarat No.103, Subzi Mandi Ghazipur. When Sudhir objected, the accused took out a desi katta and fired at the deceased. The fire hit the deceased Sudhir Munim and he fell down on the ground. While Appellant was fleeing from the spot, the complainant Ram Kishan who reached there along with his nephew Rajpal raised alarm. He along with public persons chased the Appellant Ramesh. The Appellant Ramesh again fired from his katta, which fire hit Rajpal on his left hand. PCR officials reached there and the Appellant was apprehended. From the possession of the Appellant, a katta and bag of Sudhir was recovered. SI Etender Swaroop, Investigating Officer reached at the spot on receiving DD No.15A and prepared rukka and got the FIR registered at P.S. Kalyan Puri. The injured Sudhir succumbed to injuries sustained by him on 24.6.2003. The learned Trial Judge in his judgment convicted the Appellant for offences under Sections 302/307/397 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 on the basis of the following chain of events, which he concluded stand established beyond any reasonable doubt by the evidence led by the prosecution:-

(3.) At the outset, it may be recorded that Mr. Sumit Verma, learned counsel for the Appellant did not challenge the conviction of Appellant for the offences under Sections 307/397 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act on the ground that Appellant has already remained in jail for the punishment awarded to him for these offences. The sole submission of Mr. Verma was that the learned Trial Judge fell into error in convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC instead of Section 304, Part II IPC. The aforesaid submission was made on the strength of the following facts and circumstances:-