LAWS(DLH)-1996-2-77

SUBHASH GULATI Vs. STATE

Decided On February 01, 1996
SUBHASH GULATI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has been convicted under Section 323 Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has been assailed by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that author of the FIR, Shri Ram Singh, alleged to be an eye witness had not been examined by the prosecution. The other eye witness Mahender Verma's testimony had been discredited and nor relied by the Trial Court on the charge of murder because of the contradictory statements, made by him. His testimony on the point of injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the appellant ought not to have been relied for the same reason. That Dr.V.K.Kapoor's testimony docs not support the version of injuries given by Shri Mahender Verma. Hence, testimony of Shri Mohinder Verma, PW ought to have been rejected as a whole and the conviction could not have been handed down to the appellant. The possibility of Mahender Verma trying to shield his brother has been ignored. No question relating to injuries on the person of the appellants were put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code . Since the circumstances as to how the injuries were caused to him were doubtful, therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant. It is in this background that the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) To appreciate the challenge, we have to have the story of the case as put up by the prosecution. It was stated that Mahender Verma and Surender Verma are real brothers. Mahender Verma had settled in London and was dealing in cloth business. His younger brother Surender Verma was living in India. He was having office on the 13th floor of Rohit House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He was dealing in some business. Appellant had also an office in the same building. He was friendly to Surender Verma. Madan Lal was also having business and friendly to Surender Verma as well as to the appellant.

(3.) The deceased Virender Minocha's father Ram Minocha was friendly to Mahender Verma. Virender Minocha had been visiting Mahender Verma at London in connection with his business, while Mahender Verma whenever in India used to visit and at times resided with Virender Minocha at his residence. In July, 1978 Mahender Verma came to India. His daughters were already in India. They were staying with his in-laws. Mahender Verma was at Bombay when he heard his mother had expired. Mother used to reside in the house of his younger brother Surender Verma. On hearing this news he reached Delhi. After sometime of the death of his mother, Mahender Verma rang up' his brother Surender Verma to enquire about the welfare of the family and whether they had settled down after the death of the mother. In response thereto younger brother invited Mahender Verma to his office. Pursuance to the invitation Mahender Verma alongwith Virender Minocha visited the office of Surender Verma in the evening of 25th July,1978. Surender invited the appellant and Madan Lal. All the five took liquor on. the terrace of 13th floor of that building and thereafter Madan Lal took them to a restaurant at Pandara Road for dinner. Mahender Verma in order to reciprocate the hospitality of his brother also decided to entertain Surender Verma and his friends. He accordingly informed Surender Verma about the same and told him to call his friends namely the appellant and Madan Lal. All the five persons met on 27th July,1978 on the 13th floor terrace of Rohit House New Delhi. Mahender Verma and Virender Minocha purchased two bottles of whisky from Connaught Place and reached Rohit House. At about 7.30 p.m. all the five persons started enjoying themselves over whiskey on the 13th floor of the said building. Ram Singh, who was employee of Surender Verma laid the table, chairs and spread other items on the table including eatbles and bottles of Campa Cola etc. After consuming two bottles of whisky they bought the third bottle of whisky. The drinking session continued till late past 10.00 or 10.30 p.m. While untaking session '"as going on, Surender Verma remarked to his brother Mahender Verma that he was not bothered for his brother instead he was helping others. At the same time he made derogatory remarks against Virender Minocha. Virender Minocha did not like the same. To which Mahender Verma strongly objected. On this hot words were exchanged between Mahender Verma and Surender Verma. This provoked the appellant who in order to support Surender Verma started abusing Mahender Verma. Mahender Verma objected to the language used by the appellant pursunce to which grappling started. This grappling continued till such time Mahender Verma's head struck against a pipe and he became unconscious. According to prosecution, Virender Minocha was pushed down from the terrace. Appellant as well as Surender Verma sustained injuries. Madan Lal did not sustain any bodily injuries. As per the statement of Mahender Verma dated 31st July,1978, appellant, Surender Verma and Madan Lal gave him beatings. He also faught back but appellant being stronger had upper hand in the fight and, therefore, could beat him. It was further the case of the prosecution that when the appellant was hitting Mahender Verma, Virender Minocha tried to intervene but he was pushed by the appellant. Madan Lal dragged Virender Minocha from the hair on which appellant leaving Mahender Verma pounced upon Varender Minocha. Madan Lal and appellant together pushed Virender Minocha past a parapet wall of about 2-1/2 feet height and thus he fell down. Virender Minocha died at the spot.