Appeal against the conviction being confirmed by the High Court for murder case
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09th October, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 233- DB of 2007 wherein the Division Bench dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellant Mohd. Ahsan and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 25th January, 2007 as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 09 of 2005.
3.1 On 18th August, 2005, at about 01:00 a.m., the SHO of Police Station City Jagadhri, namely, Jai Singh (PW-13), received telephonic information from P.P. Rakshak Vihar about the death of one Vikrant @ Chintu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who had been admitted in Civil Hospital, Jagadhri in an injured state. On the receipt of the information, PW-13 along with several other police personnel rushed to the said hospital wherefrom PW[1]13 obtained the medico-legal report (Ex.PC) of the deceased and recorded the statement of Sh. Devi Dayal Sharma (PW-10), the de-facto complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the First Information Report (“FIR” for short) being FIR No. 373 of 2005 was registered at Police Station, City Jagadhri for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), against the present Appellant. Subsequently, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted 3 on 18th August, 2005 wherein it was concluded that the cause of death was shock due to massive haemorrhage in the left plural cavity which was sufficient to cause death under normal circumstances.
Conclusion of trial and conviction
3.6 At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found that the prosecution had proved the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/.
Appeal dismissed in the High court
3.7 Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred a Criminal Appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.
No premeditation was revealed from the testimony of witnesses
13. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses themselves, it would reveal that there is no premeditation. The incident occurred since the appellant believed that the utterances by deceased Vikrant @ Chintu were aimed at him and, therefore, he retaliated by abusing the deceased. This was followed by a heated exchange between them. They grappled out of the building of the Dhaba. Though the witnesses were successful in separating them, the accused-Appellant rushed to his car, pulled out a bottle from the driver’s seat side, broke it on the bumper of the car and attacked the deceased.
Accused did not take any undue advantage or acted cruel or unusual manner
14. It is thus clear that the incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. The evidence would also not show that the accused-Appellant had either taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. We therefore find that the present case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
Party
MOHD. AHSAN …APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT (S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5460 of 2024 @ D.No.36602 of 2022] – 2024 INSC 338 – APRIL 25, 2024 – 3 judge bench.
