SUNIL Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

INTRODUCTION

SUNIL Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI case where an individual named Babu Ram a Fauji fired indiscriminately from his licensed single barrel gun, resulting in the deaths of Anil Kumar and Vijay, as well as causing injuries to several others. Babu Ram then handed over his gun, along with used and live cartridges, to the police, claiming self-defense. The appellants, along with Vijay (who was later acquitted by the High Court), were implicated under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly encouraging Babu Ram to fire the gunshots.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, due to the reckless discharge of a licensed single-barrel firearm by Babu Ram @ Fauji (not an appellant), two individuals named Anil Kumar and Vijay suffered fatal gunshot wounds. Additionally, 26 others sustained pellet injuries, some of which were severe. Babu Ram, the individual who discharged the firearm, subsequently surrendered it to the police, along with 16 expended cartridges and 4 live ones, while asserting a plea of self-defence. The appellants, as well as Vijay (who was acquitted by the High Court), were implicated under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly encouraging Babu Ram to fire the shots.

According to the prosecution’s account, on November 11, 1998, tensions ran high in the locality after boys from the accused party taunted the daughter of Lala Satpal. This tension escalated, culminating in a confrontation at around 3:00 pm between Satpal and Shri Krishan, with Sunil, Shri Krishan’s son, also present. Anil Kumar, one of the deceased individuals and the brother of Mangat Ram (PW-2), sided with Satpal. Babu Ram (the non-appellant) and his son Ravinder joined the altercation, aligning themselves with Shri Krishan’s side.

Subsequently, Shri Krishan, his son Sunil, Babu Ram, and Babu Ram’s son Ravinder left the scene after issuing threats that they would teach Satpal and his supporters a lesson. Shortly thereafter, Babu Ram, Shri Krishan, Ravinder, and Sunil appeared on the roof of PW-2’s house. On the provocation of Shri Krishan, Sunil, and Ravinder, Babu Ram discharged shots at Satpal’s supporters, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and injuries to as many as 26 others.

Issue

Here the question is whether the defence of Babu Ram of having acted in self defence or he took the plea of  self defence.

ARGUMENT BY APPELLENT

The argument contends that Babu Ram admitted to firing from his licensed weapon and raises doubts about the involvement of the appellants in exhorting him. It suggests that it is challenging to determine who was exhorting given the circumstances and the number of people on the roof.

The argument emphasises that mere presence with the assailant doesn’t imply common intention. Additionally, it asserts that there is unclear evidence regarding whether the gunshots that caused the deaths were part of a common intention. As a result, it argues that even if the appellants exhorted Babu Ram at some point, there is insufficient evidence to convict them under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.

The argument suggests that, at most, the appellants could be convicted under Section 307/34 of the IPC. Furthermore, it proposes that since each of the three appellants has already served more than five years of their sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the IPC, their appeals should be allowed, and their sentences reduced to the period already served for this offence.

ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENTS

On behalf of the State (NCT of Delhi), it was argued that based on the evidence presented, following the altercation, Babu Ram departed the scene accompanied by the appellants. During this departure, he issued threats indicating they would retaliate against the opposing party and its supporters. Shortly thereafter, all parties reconvened on the rooftop where the appellants were observed encouraging Babu Ram to assault the opposing party and its supporters. Subsequent gunshots resulted in the deaths of two individuals and injuries to 26 others.

Given these circumstances, it is contended that all the accused demonstrated a shared intention to inflict bodily harm that they knew could lead to the death of the victim. Furthermore, multiple gunshots were discharged. Therefore, it is evident that the appellants who urged the assailant on had a mutual intent with him.

Concerning the incriminating circumstance of exhortation not being presented to the accused appellants during their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC, it was argued that even if it was omitted, they suffered no detriment, which is evident from the following points:

a) The appellants were consistently represented by their legal counsel;

(b) Witness statements were recorded in the presence of the appellants and their counsel;

(c) Their counsel specifically cross-examined the witnesses regarding their statements pertaining to the appellants’ encouragement; and

(d) The First Information Report (FIR) of the incident, which outlined their role as instigators, was presented to them. 

JUDGEMENT

These three appeals challenge the ruling and verdict of the Delhi High Court, issued on July 28, 2009, concerning the following Criminal Appeal Numbers: 962 of 2004, 977 of 2004, 981 of 2004, 14 of 2005, and 61 of 2005. The High Court’s decision resulted in the rejection of Criminal Appeal Numbers 962 of 2004, 977 of 2004, 981 of 2004, and 61 of 2005, which were filed by Sunil (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2011), Shri Krishna (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 785 of 2011), Ravinder (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2011), and Babu Ram @ Fauji (a co-accused), respectively. However, Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2005, filed by co-accused Vijay, was granted.

The ultimate consequence of the contested judgment and decree is the affirmation of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi’s order dated November 8, 2004, in Sessions Trial No.42 of 1999, stemming from FIR No.561 of 1998, P.S. Jahangir Puri. This order convicted and sentenced Babu Ram @ Fauji, Sunil, Shri Krishan, and Ravinder under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to as “the IPC”). However, the conviction of co-accused Vijay has been overturned.

 It is noteworthy that Babu Ram @ Fauji was also handed a sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, which has also been upheld by the High Court. The sentences imposed on the appellants, namely, Sunil, Shri Krishan, and Ravinder, which are being contested in these appeals, are as follows:

(i) Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, along with an additional sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment in default, under Section 302/34 IPC; and

(ii) Five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, coupled with an additional sentence of three months in default, under Section 307/34 IPC.

ANALYSIS

It highlights key points that have been established and are not in serious dispute:

The incident arose from a dispute between two families, specifically Sri Krishan’s family and Satpal’s family, over alleged harassment of girls by boys from the opposing family.

All gunshots causing injuries and fatalities were fired by Babu Ram, a non-appellant, who was subsequently convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

IPC Section 302 prescribes the punishment for murder: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine”.

The gun used by Babu Ram was licensed to him. Babu Ram was present during the altercation between the two families. Babu Ram is the brother-in-law of Shri Krishan.

Babu Ram’s residence opens onto Street No. 400, while Satpal’s residence opens onto Street No. 300. Shri Krishan’s exact location is not explicitly provided in the site plan, but it is inferred to be near Satpal’s residence on Street No. 300.The description of the location of the incident is outlined in detail, emphasising the layout of the streets and houses. The proximity of the houses and their orientations relative to the streets is described in the judgement of the High Court. Notably, the location of specific spots where the victims were shot is marked on the site plan.The analysis notes that between Street Nos. 300 and 400, there are two rows of houses positioned back-to-back. One row of houses opens northward onto Street No. 400, while the other row opens southward onto Street No. 300. The third row, south of Street No. 300, opens northward onto the same street. Satpal’s house is in this row, while Babu Ram’s house opens onto Street No. 400.According to the evidence presented, the altercation occurred on Street No. 300. Subsequently, Babu Ram left the scene, retrieved his gun from his house on Street No. 400, and fired shots at the people on Street No. 300 from the roof of one of the row houses, which the prosecution alleges to be Mangat Ram’s house.

CONCLUSION

In light of the discussion above, the court has made the following determinations:

The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 is considered unsustainable, and as a result, it is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of this charge.

However, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 are upheld. The sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the IPC is affirmed.

As a result of these decisions, the appeals are partly allowed.

The appellants, who are reported to be on bail, are instructed to surrender immediately to serve any remaining sentence, if applicable, as awarded by the trial court under Section 307/34 of the IPC. If the appellants have already served the sentence awarded to them under Section 307/34 of the IPC, they need not be taken into custody, subject to verification of the records and custody certificates.

REFERENCES

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/

https://www.the-laws.com/

Admin