Mahender v. State

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

FEBRUARY 16, 2009 mm

i.11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 972/2008 % Date of Order : February 16, 2009 MAHENDER ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) Crl.M.B.No.1461/2008 During arguments in the application seeking bail it transpired that there was a possibility of the sentence being modified from that of the offence of murder to the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For said reason with consent of learned counsel for the appellant and the State it was decided that the main appeal itself may be heard for disposal. Since the appeal has been heard, the application seeking suspension of sentence is dismissed as infructuous. Crl.A.No.972/2008 1. Information was received by PS Roop Nagar at 10:00 PM on 10.8.2000 that a person was lying unconscious near a lane across Shakti Nagar, Jain Mandir, Near Aggarwal Hospital. Additional SHO, Inspector Randhir Singh accompanied by SI Manoj Kumar and Const. Bhagat Singh went to the spot and at the spot met one Umrao Singh, a public witness who identified a dead body lying nearby as that of Balijour @ Panchi. He informed the police that accused Mahender had hit the deceased with brick blows and had run away from the spot. 2. The statement Ex.PW-6/A of Umrao Singh was recorded and after making an endorsement thereon, was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR. Investigation at the spot was completed in the form of recovery of a brick; the alleged weapon of offence with which the appellant had inflicted blows on the deceased. Control earth, blood stained earth was also lifted vide memos Ex.PW-5/B to Ex.PW-5/E. The dead body was seized and sent for post-mortem. Dr. Jaiswal PW-27, conducted the post-mortem and recorded that the injuries on the person of the deceased were the result of being hit by a blunt object and that the injuries had affected the brain i.e. were craniocerebral injuries. 3. Back at the spot, a photographer was summoned who took the photographs. Site plan was prepared. 4. After a few days an application Ex.PW-27/B was submitted to Dr. Jaiswal for an opinion whether the injuries could be caused by a brick. He opined vide Ex.PW-27/B that the injuries were possibly caused by a brick. 5. Suffice would it be to state that armed with the aforesaid post-mortem report and an eye witness to the incident, namely Umrao Singh PW-6, the charge sheet was filed indicting the appellant of the offence of murdering Balijour. 6. Umrao Singh PW-6, eye witness deposed that he used to iron clothes at the thiya of one Balram Singh and that the deceased was a truck driver and used to sleep at the thiya at night as and when he was at Delhi and that the accused Mahender used to work as a waiter in a tent house and used to visit the thiya. That on 11.8.2000 i.e. the date of the incident, at 10:00 PM, deceased Balijour was present at the thiya and the accused as also one Hari Singh came there. All of a sudden there was a quarrel. He intervened and the quarrel stopped. Hari left the place and he i.e. Umaro Singh went to fetch water from a tap behind a tempo and when he returned he saw that the accused was striking the brick on the head of Balijour who was bleeding. That the accused ran away and he i.e. Umrao Singh went to a nearby chemist and informed the PCR. 7. As per the post-mortem report there are 8 ante- mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem report Ex.PW-27/A reveals the following 8 injuries:- "1. Lacerated wound with bruised margin on (R) fronto parietal region of size 2½" x ¼" – ½" x ½" with bone piece driven in and crepitus felt over it. 2. Lacerated wound with bruised margin on (R) parietal regi