The High Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence for conviction under Section 307 IPC to the period already undergone in custody and directing payment of fine to the victim.
Appellant sentenced to time already undergone; fine of Rs.5000 adjusted with one month SI for default; released on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Reserved on: 25.05.2017 Delivered on: 29.05.2017
+ CRL.A.71/2015 SATISH ..... Appellant
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms.Nikita Sharma. For the Respondent : Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP. CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR JUDGMENT
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
Page 1 of 6
CRL.A.71/2015
to the appellant on 18.06.2005. The appellant is stated to be a drunkard. On the day of the occurrence i.e. 14.02.2013 at about 11 AM, while Poonam was at home, the appellant poured kerosene oil over her and tried to put her on fire over a minor fight which had taken place between them. It was further alleged that despite her repeated requests, the appellant did not take her to the hospital. Thereafter Poonam caller her father and also informed the police. The appellant, out of fear, ran away from the house. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the subject FIR was registered.
Page 2 of 6
CRL.A.71/2015
proved her report regarding partial burnt clothes (Exh.PW-5/A).
Page 3 of 6
CRL.A.71/2015
occurrence and also named such persons from whom confirmation about the incident was taken. That apart, such bald statement that investigation was not conducted fairly would not be of any avail to the appellant unless it is specifically shown that for some lapse on the part of the investigating agency, the appellant has been put in any disadvantageous position. 13. No doubt the prosecution is required to bring forth independent/competent persons to support its version, nonetheless, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that police witnesses are not to be believed and that in the absence of examination of any local person/neighbour, the prosecution version ought to be disbelieved. 14. Minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses is of no avail as witnesses are bound to miss out on certain facts if the occurrence is of an old date. Some discount is required to be given to human memory. What is required to be seen is that there should not be any material contradiction so as to discredit the entire prosecution version. None of such contradictions have been pointed out on behalf of the appellant. 15. The intention of the appellant is clearly established. Pouring kerosene oil and attempting to put PW-1 on fire makes him liable for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. It is not necessary that the bodily injury caused must be of such a nature that it would cause death. There is no evidence with respect to the fact that such an act of the appellant was done while the appellant was under the complete influence of alcohol. He may have been inebriated at the time of the occurrence but for the appellant to take any advantage of his lack of consciousness, he was required to prove beyond hilt that he was not in a position to understand the nature and quality of his act. Thus there is no way in which the
Page 4 of 6
CRL.A.71/2015
judgment of the Trial Court could be faulted.
Page 5 of 6
CRL.A.71/2015
the appellant ran away only when the police was called. There was no supervening circumstance to stop the appellant from causing greater harm. There was no pre planned motive and the reason of assault was a minor squabble. The act complained of was committed while the appellant was intoxicated. The appellant has participated in the trial and has not done anything to disrupt the marital status of PW-1. As argued on behalf of the appellant, there still is a possibility of restoration of the matrimonial life of PW-1 with the appellant.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
MAY 29, 2017 k
Page 6 of 6
CRL.A.71/2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC requires modification regarding sentence given already served custody time.
Whether the appellant's intoxication warrants mitigation of the sentence.
Whether the appeal should be allowed in part to remit time served and adjust the fine.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
