Chotte Lal Shrivastva @Chotte v. State of NCT of Delhi

judgment is as follows :- "7. But then, what is the nature of the offence proved against him? It is an admitted case that the appellant was in a highly inebriated stage when he approached the deceased when the demand for sparing her ornaments was made by him. When she refused to oblige he poured kerosene on her and wanted her to light the matchstick. When she failed to do so he collected the matchbox and ignited one matchstick but when the flames were up he suddenly and frantically poured water to save her from the tongues of flames. This conduct cannot be seen divorced from the totality of the circumstances. Very probably he would not have anticipated that the act done by him would have escalated to such a proportion that she might die. If he had ever intended her to die he would not have alerted his senses to bring water in an effort to rescue her. We are inclined to think that all that the accused thought of was to inflict burns to her and to frighten-her but unfortunately the situation slipped out of his control and it went to the fatal extent. He would not have intended to inflict the injuries which she sustained on account of his act. Therefore, we are persuaded to bring down the offence from first degree murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder".

¶13In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that conviction of the accused is required to be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. We have also heard the parties on the point of

sentence. Considering the role played by the accused and the fact that he inflicted injuries with knife on the vital part of body, interest of justice would be served if he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years. Other sentences are left undisturbed.

¶14The appeal is partly allowed and orders of conviction and sentence are modified in the above terms.

Crl.M.(Bail)272/2012

In view of the orders passed above, this application stands disposed of as having become infructuous.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE April 24, 2012 sa

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : 24th April, 2012 + CRL.A165/2012 & Crl.M.(Bail)272/2012 CHOTTE LAL SHRIVASTVA @ CHOTTE ....Appellant. Through: Mr.Vivek Sood, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ....Respondent. Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.2011 and order on sentence dated 24.11.2011 of a learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.42/2009 by which the appellant Chotte Lal Srivastva @ Chotte was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of `3,00,000/-. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 11.03.2009 at 03.40 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) entry No.51B (Ex.PW21/A) was recorded at Police Station Anand Parbat on information received from Duty Operator Room to the effect that a boy has been stabbed with a knife at B-2611, Gali No.22, Baljeet Nagar. The investigation was assigned to ASI Suresh on telephone and he reached the spot. The injured had already been taken by CATS ambulance to DDU hospital. He (ASI Suresh) with constable Satpal reached the hospital and collected the MLC of the deceased (identified as Avdesh Tiwari @ Saadhu, resident of D-220, Punjabi Basti). He made an endorsement on the DD No.51/B and sent the rukka for registering case under Section 302 IPC. Further investigation was taken over by Inspector Raghubir Singh (PW-22) who summoned the crime team and got the scene of incident photographed. He recorded the statements of Shiv Prakash Tripathi (PW-3), Mahinder Singh PW-12), Puran Singh (PW-11) and Parshu Ram (PW-6) and it emerged that since it was Holi, they were celebrating the festival with their neighbours. Both the accused and the deceased had consumed liquor. At about 3:00 P.M., a quarrel took place between the two, and the neighbours separated them. After that, the accused went to his room on the third floor and all the while deceased (Avdesh Tiwari @ Saadhu) remained standing near his room on the ground floor. After about 8-10 he returned they again started quarrelling with each other. The deceased had a wooden 'danda' in his hand. A scuffle took place. When they were separated by the neighbours, the deceased (Avdesh Tiwari @ Saadhu) informed them that the accused had stabbed him with a knife. He ran towards Baljit Nagar and after search, he was found unconscious near the Tanki, Baljit Nagar and taken to the hospital. 3. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and pursuant to the disclosure statement, he got recovered the blood stained knife. The IO also seized the control earth, blood-stained earth, deceased's shirt and prepared necessary seizure memos. Dr.Komal Singh (PW-23) conducted post-mortem of the body. After conclusion of the investigation, the IO filed a charge-sheet against the accused for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused was duly charged and brought to trial. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; he denied his hand in the crime and pleaded false implication. After appreciation of the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court convicted him. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel, under instructions from the appellant, opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court whereby he (the accused) was held responsible for causing injuries to the victim resulting in his death. He, however, urged that even if the prosecution's case is taken at its face value, Section 302 IPC was not attracted. The incident took place suddenly without premeditation and the accused in a fit of rage stabbed the deceased. The counsel further argued that the assault by the deceased triggered the situation ruling out 'intention' to murder the deceased