Chhotu Vs.
State of Haryana [2009] INSC 1708 (9 November 2009)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2063
OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4943/2007) CHHOTU APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:
O R D E R
Leave
granted.
Heard the
learned counsel for the parties.
This
appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2006 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.489-DB
of 1999.
The
appellant along with the co-accused Bhallu was convicted under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay
a fine of Rs.2,000/- by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. The High Court
while setting aside the conviction of the co-accused Bhallu, affirmed the
conviction of the appellant herein. This Court while entertaining the special
leave petition of the appellant, issued notice confined to the question of the
nature of the offence.
2 Dr.
Daya Nand (PW-1), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the
deceased Dilbagh has opined as follows:
"There
was no external mark of injuries over the body except a diffused swelling over
left temporal region. On cut section of this echymosis was present in the skin
and sub- cutaneous tissues. On further dissection on removing the scalp
haemotoma was present under the scalp in left temporal, left parietal and right
temporal region. After removing this haemotoma skull bone was seen and there
was fracture on left temporal bone. Infiltration of the blood was present at
the fractured ends. After removing the skull there was extra dural haemotoma
was found lying in whole of the temporal region and parietal region of left
side."
Admittedly,
this was the only one injury found on the body of the deceased. This injury was
attributed to the appellant.
In the
facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. is inappropriate.
In our
considered view, the ends of justice would be met if the conviction of the
appellant is altered from Section 302/34 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part
II of 3 the I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten
years.
Accordingly
the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the appellant
is convicted under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
The
appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.
.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)
.....................J (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi;
November 9, 2009.
Back
