Partly allowed

Manoj Kumar v. State

Delhi HC11 Jan 2018CRL.A./522/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court in appeal found that the appellant's act of manhandling did not involve a weapon and occurred prior to the co-accused using a weapon, negating common intention for Section 324 IPC. The conviction was altered under Section 323 IPC and the sentence reduced to a fine. The Bail bond was cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Conviction altered from Section 324 IPC to Section 323 IPC; sentence awarded as fine of Rs. 1000/-; Bail bond cancelled.

Manoj Kumar Vs State — Delhi HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:18.01.2025 17:29:15 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

other cases, his detentioninjail continued.

¶3

Today this Court has been informed that Dinesh has since expired, The death certificateof appellantDineshis placedon record by the learned APP. AppellantDinesh had expired on 02.07.2017. His legal heirs have not been brought on, record. The appeal qua Dinesh stands abated.

¶4

The arguments have been heard on the role of co-accused Manoj. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the ingredients of Section- 34 of the IPC cannot be attributed to the appellant Manoj as there was no common intention which is elucidated in the evidence. It is pointed out that the only role attributed to the appellant Manoj was that he had manhandled the victim; this was separate from the act of accused (Dinesh) who had used the weapon. Moreoverthis manhandlinghaving been allegedly carried out by the appellant Manoj prior to the act of the co-accused, common intention cannot be attributed^ to the co-accused. To substantiate this submission, learned'counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the version of PW2, PW3 and. PW5. PW2 was the injured. He had on bath stated that after-he had come back from the market upon purchasing a cake for the birthday of his nephew,'the accused Manoj manhandled him stating that he had I . . stolen his scooter since the colour of the scooter of Manoj was identical to the. colour of the scooter used by PW2. This had led-to .the manhandling. PW2 had admittedly driven the scooter of Manoj to buy the cake; he had thought that it was the scooter of his brother. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is

¶5

; •

¶6

¶7

the only role given to the accusedManoj., Even as,per PW2 accused Manoj manhandled .PW2 as PW2 had mistakenly taken the scooter of Manoj to purchase the cake. The injuries were indicted,to P,W2 by: Dinesh subsequently.

¶8

The second alleged eye witness is PW3. On a court question put to PW3, ,PW3 admitted that he had hot seen Manoj giving any beating to PW2 as when he came out of the house, the accused persons were running away. The evidence of PW3 does little to • support the version of the prosecution.

¶9

PW5 is the second injured,person. The role attributed to the appellant Manoj is that he started calling PW2 chor chor and started given beating to PW2 along with co-accused Dinesh. PW5 also, admittedthat PW2 had by mistake taken the scooterof the appellant to purchase the cake. ^

¶10

No otherrole has been attributedto the appellantManoj. , The injured witness PW2 is also present in court. It is stated that the parties are neighbours and they have settled their disputes. Be that as it may, this courtneed not really delye in this aspect of the matter as noting the evidence which has come on record and also the medical report which evidences simple injuries on the two injured (PW2 and PWS),- this court is of the view that the conyiction of the appellant Manoj under Section 324 of the IPG is not'called for; No conimon intention could also have been attributed to the appellant Manoj. The act of the appellant Manoj was a distinct individual act ' and prior in time to the act of the co accused. Moreover,it was for a genuine reason that the appellant Manoj had manhandled PW2 and it

¶11

¶12

¶13

: was for the reasdri that PW2.had adniittedly taken the scooted of the appellantt6 purchasethe cake. Section324 IPG pre supposesthe use pfthe weapori. No weapon was admittedlyused by the,appellant.' -

¶14

• w

¶15

;This c.Quit is of the view that the coiiyiction needs to be .altered and-thecpnvictionof the appellantis alteredfrom Section324 IPG.to 323 IPG. Section 324 IPG casts'a statutory obligatidn upon the court to impose a sentenceeither of,iniprisbnmentwhichmay extend-upto one year, or with a fm6 which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- or both.. suffered incarceration of 8 days; it was at that point of time that,his , sentencewas suspeiided,he is a married man, he has childrenand a \ family to support. Parties are now living peacefiilly and in fact thecomplainantwho is living in the,s^me viciriityalso has no grievance.^' left with' the; appellant. Submission is that this- is a fit case where •alternate sentence pf fine alone should be impbsed Pn the appellant.^. - This Golirt appreciates,this suWissipnof the appellant.' This Gourt . thus while maintainingthe cofivictionof the appellarit;Manoj under -Section323 IPG sentenceshiin,topay a fine of Rs 1000/- which fine, shall be depositedwithin!a period of 3 days .fi-orn today. Bail bond ^ cancelledj. surety discharged. .- ,

¶16

Appealsdisposedof inthe abPve terms. /- ;

¶17

iNDERMEET KAUR, J

¶18

M]^13ARY11,2018 su' • ~ ^ ,

¶19

'I. • ' , V . ' •

Manoj Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Jitender Bhai Shah & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shahid Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Anwar Husain Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ganga Ram & Anr. Vs State (Govt NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Mithlesh Kumar Vs State