Partly allowed

Maharaj Haider v. State

Delhi HC4 Feb 2016CRL.A./502/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court of Delhi modified the appellant's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court found the appellant acted in heat of passion after being hit by the deceased, thereby mitigating the offense. The appellant had to serve the remaining sentence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder; appellant sentenced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.

Maharaj Haider Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~R-20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: February 04, 2016

¶4

- CRL.A. 502/2000

¶5

MAHARAJ HAIDER ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶8

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

¶9

The time was 8:30 PM and the date was March 13, 1994. The place was the weekly Sunday Bazaar at Nangal Dairy. The appellant Maharaj Haider, one Mohd.Ismile, one Mumtaz Begum and one Mehrunisa were sucked into an altercation with the deceased, origin whereof was a week prior when Mumtaz Begum and Mehrunisa purchased a pair of chappals each from Phool Kumar PW-14 and returning to Phool Kumar’s place of business at the weekly bazaar to return the chappals informing that they were substandard. Mohan Pal PW-2 vending his wares next to Phool Kumar detecting that the chappals had been used, and hence prompting Phool Kumar not to replace the chappals, resulting in a remonstration between the two ladies, Phool Kumar and Mohan Pal, attracting appellant Maharaj Haider and Mohd.Ismile to the vending site of Phool Kumar, because the two resided nearby in a jhuggi. The two requested Phool Kumar and Mohan

¶10

Crl.Appeal No.502/2000 Page 1 of 4

¶11

Pal to replace the chappals sold by Phool Kumar to Mumtaz Begum and Mehrunisa and the two gentlemen refusing. The deceased Vimal Kumar, brother of Mohan Pal, who also used to vend wares at the weekly market intervened. The remonstration turned sour. There was jostling. Vimal Kumar picked up a ‘ thapi : a wooden bat shaped object ’ to facilitate washing of clothes, and hit Maharaj Haider on the head, who seething in anger ran to his jhuggi nearby and returned with a meat chopping knife to inflict one solitary blow on Vimal, which unfortunately pierced the heart of Vimal causing his death.

¶12

These undisputed facts have emerged through the testimony of Subhash Chandra PW-1, Mohan Pal PW-2, Ram Kishan PW-4, Yashpal PW-5 and Phool Kumar PW-14. 3. We have been taken through the testimony of the five eye witnesses who saw the incident and regarding their presence being natural, learned counsel for the appellant has nothing to argue, because each one of them used to vend wares at the weekly bazaar. With the usual variations, which are expected when five people give account of the same incident, nothing emerges to discredit the testimony of any of the five eye witnesses.

¶13

That the deceased died on account of a knife blow inflicted on his chest is not in dispute.

¶14

The only issue which needs our attention is : whether the act committed by the appellant would be murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

¶15

Before the learned Trial Judge the argument was that the testimony of the witnesses shows that the deceased Vimal hit the appellant with a thapi and therefore the appellant acted in self defence, a plea which was rightly

¶16

Crl.Appeal No.502/2000 Page 2 of 4

¶17

rejected by the learned Trial Judge. The testimony of the witnesses show that after Vimal hit him with a thapi, the appellant went to his jhuggi and returned with a knife and stabbed Vimal.

¶18

From the testimony of the witnesses it emerges that the jhuggi in which the appellant and Mohd.Ismile were residing was near the place where Phool Kumar used to sell chappals at the weekly market, because all of them have deposed that when Mumtaz Begum and Mehrunisa were arguing with Phool Kumar the loud and shrill dialogues attracted the appellant and Mohd.Ismile and the two told Phool Kumar to replace the chappals he had sold the previous week to Mumtaz Begum and Mehrunisa. This is crucial for the reason the testimony of the witnesses shows that the deceased intervened when Phool Kumar, assisted by Mohan Pal refused to replace the chappals and since appellant and Mohd.Ismile were taking the side of the two ladies, Vimal intervened and hit the appellant with a thapi, which would naturally give birth to anger in the mind of the appellant and would make him propel to likewise arm himself to hit back; his jhuggi being at an arm’s distance, having hardly any time to cool, within seconds go and come back from the jhuggi; armed with a handy object. It is apparent that when the heat of the passion, occasioned by the events of the moment was on, the appellant did the offending act.

¶19

This aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the learned Trial Judge.

¶20

We dispose of the appeal modifying appellant’s conviction from the offence of murder to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and noting that when appellant was admitted to bail by this Court he had already undergone

¶21

Crl.Appeal No.502/2000 Page 3 of 4

¶22

a sentence of 6 years and had earned a remission of 6 months, we sentence him to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone.

¶23

In view of the appeal being partially allowed the bail bond and surety

¶24

bond furnished by the appellant are discharged.

¶25

Trial Court Record be returned.

¶26

Copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for updation of the jail record.

¶27

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

¶28

(MUKTA GUPTA)

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

FEBRUARY 04, 2016 mamta

¶31

Crl.Appeal No.502/2000

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Maharaj Haider v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaj Haider v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Manoj

Gurmeet Earthmovers Company & Ors. Vs M/S Icici Bank Ltd.

Sunil Kumar Vs Mohit Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Raj Bahadur & Anr. Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.

Manoj Arora Vs Swaran Kanta Bajaj & Anr.

Tourism Finance Corporation Vs M/S Woodys Hotels Private Limited & Ors.