Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Sunil @ Sonu & Others vs. State NCT of Delhi
Date: 24th September 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon'ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocates:
Shri Rishi Malhotra (Senior Advocate for Appellants)
Shri Prashant Singh (Counsel for Respondent)
Acts and Sections:
Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Part I, Section 304, Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
Introduction
The judgment in Sunil @ Sonu & Others vs. State NCT of Delhi is a significant case that delves into the nuanced application of criminal law, particularly concerning the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case arose from a violent altercation that escalated into the death of one Sachin, leading to the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Both the trial court and the Delhi High Court upheld the appellants' conviction for murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the conviction was modified to Part I of Section 304 IPC, reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Factual Background
The incident that led to this case took place on 28th November 2016, when a confrontation between the appellants and the deceased Sachin, along with Rahul (PW-1), escalated into a violent altercation. The appellants, armed with knives and sticks, attacked Sachin and Rahul. Despite attempts to flee, Sachin was caught and fatally stabbed by the appellants. Rahul was also injured in the altercation. A witness, Shivani (PW-2), who is the aunt of Rahul, attempted to intervene and called the police for help. Both Rahul and Sachin were taken to the hospital, where Sachin succumbed to his injuries on 2nd December 2016.
The case of the prosecution was built on the testimonies of Rahul and Shivani, along with the post-mortem report provided by Dr. Arun Kumar (PW-8). According to the medical examination, the fatal injuries sustained by Sachin were inflicted by sharp objects, leading to septicemic shock and death.
Key Legal Issues
Delay in Filing the FIR: One of the central arguments put forth by Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, was that the prosecution’s case was weakened by an unexplained delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR). Though the incident occurred on 28th November 2016, the FIR was only registered on 30th November 2016. Rahul (PW-1) stated that he fell unconscious and was unable to file the FIR promptly, but the court found this explanation to be implausible given the timeline of events.
Contradictions in Witness Testimonies: The defence also pointed out several inconsistencies in the testimonies of Rahul and Shivani, the key witnesses. Shivani admitted under cross-examination that her initial statement did not fully mention the involvement of the accused in the injuries sustained by Sachin and Rahul. These contradictions were highlighted to question the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
Self-Defence and Prior FIR: A significant aspect of the defence was the assertion that the appellants had acted in self-defence. A cross FIR had been lodged by Sunil @ Sonu on 29th November 2016, accusing Rahul and Sachin of assaulting them while intoxicated. The appellants had sustained injuries during the altercation, which were not explained by the prosecution. This omission was argued to suggest that the prosecution had suppressed the true genesis of the incident.
Court’s Findings
After reviewing the evidence and considering the submissions of both parties, the Supreme Court concluded that the case involved a sudden quarrel and that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellants. The court found that while the appellants had inflicted fatal injuries, the circumstances pointed towards a situation where the offence was committed in the heat of passion during a sudden fight, without the intention to cause death.
Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai noted:
“The possibility of the offence being committed by the appellants without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out.”
This observation was pivotal in the court's decision to reduce the charge from Section 302 (murder) to Part I of Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The court also highlighted that there was no evidence to show that the appellants had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, further supporting the alteration of the charge.
Legal Reasoning
The court’s reasoning centred around the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which allows for the conversion of a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act is committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without premeditation and without the offender taking undue advantage.
In its analysis, the court referred to the testimonies of the key witnesses, the medical evidence, and the conduct of the appellants during the altercation. The injuries sustained by the appellants were a critical factor, as it suggested that they were not the sole aggressors and that the situation may have escalated into violence spontaneously.
The court emphasised that, although the appellants were responsible for the death of Sachin, the absence of premeditation and the sudden nature of the quarrel made it appropriate to reduce the charge. The appellants had already served more than eight years in prison, which was considered sufficient punishment for the offence under Part I of Section 304.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment in Sunil @ Sonu & Others vs. State NCT of Delhi offers a crucial legal precedent in interpreting cases of violent altercations that escalate into homicide. By converting the charge from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304 IPC, the court underscored the importance of examining the intent behind the act, the circumstances of the incident, and the behaviour of the accused. Legal professionals handling similar cases can draw important lessons from the court’s approach to evidence, witness testimony, and the application of criminal law exceptions.
Comments