Rakesh v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant for causing death (Section 304(II)) due to insufficient evidence and granted him the benefit of doubt based on contradictory testimonies. Convictions for other offences were withdrawn due to a valid compromise.
What did the court decide?
Appellant acquitted of offences under Section 304(II)/34 IPC; acquitted of offences under Sections 323/325/34 IPC due to compromise; fine reported to remain with Trial Court.
What the court decided
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Date of Decision: 11th July, 2016
+ CRL. A. No. 1368/2011 & CRL. MA No. 17469/2011
RAKESH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Amardeep Singh, Advocate alongwith appellant in person.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for the
State alongwith sub-Inspector
Alok Kumar Rajan from Police
Station Sarai Rohilla.
%
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
J U D G M E N T
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
- By virtue of this appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, appellant Rakesh impugns the judgment and order on sentence dated 1612.2009 and 07.01.2010 respectively in Session Case No. 144/1/2009 arising out of FIR No. 339/2003, Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi vide which he was convicted under Section 323/325/304 (II)/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone for all the offences with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 323/325/34 IPC and Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 304(II)/34 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Crl. A. 1368/2011
Page 1 of 12
- The prosecution case emanates from the fact that vide DD No. 10A dated 28.09.2003, a PCR call was received in Police Station Sarai Rohilla regarding quarrel at RPF Line, Daya Basti, Delhi. On receipt of this information, SI Rajender Singh along with Constable Tejpal reached at the spot where he came to know that the injured have already removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. The police officials reached at Hindu Rao Hospital where he received MLC of Om Prakash, Sarvesh, Attar Singh, Munna Lal with alleged history of assault. The injured were kept under observation and injuries were reported to be received by blunt force impact. The patients were declared fit for statement. Statement of Om Prakash was recorded, wherein, he alleged that a quarrel took place on account of cleaning by his brother Naresh outside the jhuggi. The accused persons objected to the cleaning. Initially, Jai Bhagwan and Prem Lal came there. Thereafter, Rakesh and Mukesh also came at the spot and they joined the other two accused in abusing and beating Naresh. Om Prakash was also given beating with danda on different parts of his body. Meanwhile, his other brother Munna and Attar Singh living nearby Jhuggi reached the spot and they were also hit with dandas as a result of which, they sustained injuries. His wife Sarvesh came at the spot to save Attar Singh and Munna upon which, Prem Lal took danda from Rakesh and hit on her shoulder and abdomen while accused Rakesh gave fist blows on her abdomen. This statement Ex.PW-1/A became bedrock of investigation. Sarvesh ultimately succumbed to her injuries as such after completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 304/308/325/323/34 IPC.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the complicity of the appellant for causing death of the deceased is established beyond reasonable doubt given contradictory versions of the complainant.
Whether the offences under Sections 323, 325, and 34 IPC are maintainable in view of the compromise reached between the parties.
Whether the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence should be allowed, dismissed, or disposed of considering the benefit of doubt and settlement.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rakesh
- respondent
The State
Coram
Sunita Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court