In the case of Mohd. Ahsan vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court of India has rendered a crucial judgment modifying the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The case involved a tragic incident at Shiv Dhaba leading to the death of the deceased. The parties involved, including witnesses Devi Dayal, Neeraj Gulati, and Rajiv Kumar, played significant roles in the legal proceedings. Let’s delve into the details of this impactful legal decision.
Facts
- The incident took place at Shiv Dhaba where the de-facto complainant was having food with two others.
- An altercation occurred when the deceased called the waiter, resulting in the Appellant attacking him.
- The Appellant used a glass bottle to inflict five injuries on the deceased, causing his death.
- Post mortem examination revealed the cause of death to be shock due to massive hemorrhage.
- The Appellant claimed it was a case of false implication, stating the deceased had rushed towards him with a broken bottle.
- SHO of Police Station City Jagadhri received information about the death of the deceased
- The deceased had been admitted to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri in an injured state
- High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence by the trial Court
- The trial Court found the prosecution had proven the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt
- Appellant convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
Arguments
- Appellant did not have the intention to cause the death of the deceased.
- The nature of injuries suggests that the appellant did not act in a cruel or unusual manner.
- The incident was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation.
- It occurred in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
- Arguments presented by Mr. Jay Kishor Singh and Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma were heard.
- The Appellant argues that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is not valid.
- They suggest that the offence should fall under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.
- The Learned D.A.G., Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, contends that both courts have correctly found the Appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.
- He believes that the evidence was properly assessed, leading to the conviction, which he argues should not be interfered with.
Also Read: Raj School of Nursing and Paramedical College vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Analysis
- The prosecution case relies on the ocular testimony of three witnesses: PW10 Devi Dayal, PW11 Neeraj Gulati, and PW12 Rajiv Kumar.
- The altercation began when the deceased, Vikrant, called a waiter with a ‘Hello’ which the accused misinterpreted as being aimed at him, leading to verbal abuse in retaliation.
- The situation escalated into a physical fight outside the Dhaba, where the witnesses intervened to separate them.
- The accused, in a fit of rage, retrieved a glass bottle from his car, broke it on the bonnet, and attacked the deceased, causing multiple deep injuries.
- There was no evidence of premeditation, indicating that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment and without prior planning.
- Despite initial separation, the accused and the deceased continued to quarrel inside the restaurant premises.
- Present appeal partly allowed.
- Case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
- Accused-Appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner.
Decision
- The appeal is partly allowed.
- Period spent by the accused-Appellant in custody to be set-off against the sentence.
- Conviction under Section 302 of the IPC altered to Part I of Section 304 of the IPC.
- Accused-Appellant sentenced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.
- A fine of Rs. 5,000/- imposed with default imprisonment of three months in case of non-payment.
Case Title: MOHD. AHSAN Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2024 INSC 338)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002265-002265 / 2024
