Supreme Court High Court Judgment updates| taxation GST laws| NRI help

Sentence under 302 IPC, convicts plea that the offence took place due to sudden quarrel not acceptable, Delhi High Court.

January 11, 2018



Sudden Quarrel not an acceptable plea

A Bench of Delhi High Court Judges, Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice I.S. Mehta in Karamvir @ Sonu v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, CRL. A No. 1354 of 2012, disposed of the appeal filed by the convict against Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.


The facts of the case is that a call being received at the Police Control Room (PCR) at 1:43.58 a.m. on 23rd June, 2010 from the Appellant's mobile number (9717405214) that a quarrel had taken place at Bharthal village near Community Centre. As it emerged later from the records of the said mobile number, which is also noted in the PCR form(Ex.PW-22/A), there was one earlier call made at 1:34:51 am as well. The making of the call was noted down by a Woman Constable (W. Ct.) Santosh who was on duty at that time. By the time the trial took place, however, W.Ct. Santosh had expired and the fact that she had filled up the said PCR form was proved by W. Ct. Sushma (PW-22).


The said call was directed to the PCR South-West where Constable RamRaj (PW-6) was posted. He then accompanied Head Constable Ramanand(PW-7) to the spot. On the way to the spot, PW-7 himself again called up the mobile number of the Appellant and told him to come near the policevehicle on hearing the siren of the vehicle. When both PWs 6 and 7 (Zebra89) reached the Community Centre at village Bharthal, the Appellant, disclosing his name as Karamvir, approached the vehicle.


Both PWs 6 and 7 have stated in their depositions in the Court that the Appellant told them about having strangulated his wife with a dupatta. However, the trial Court rightly rejected this part of the evidence as being inadmissible in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).It was further deposed by PWs 6 and 7 that after reaching the spot and meeting the Appellant, they entered his house. There they found his wifeAnju (the deceased) lying on the cot with her eyes protruding outwards and mouth open Both PWs 6 and 7 deposed that the Appellant told them that his parents were staying in another house nearby. He then left to call his parents. By the time the Appellant returned with his parents, the Station House Officer (SHO) of PS Kapashera, Inspector T.R. Punia (PW-21), also reached the spot. Meanwhile, SI Vikram Singh had already reached there. The Appellant was arrested. His personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement recorded.


For the aforementioned offence the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.25,000 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of 6 months.



The court said that "Unfortunately, the Appellant himself did not pursue that alternative line of defence during the trial. With PW-11 resiling from his previous statement to the police, the extra-judicial confession as a piece of circumstantial evidence was unavailable to the prosecution. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the plea of the Appellant at this stage that the offence should be considered to be one that took place as a result of sudden quarrel or fight."

"This Court is unable to find any legal infirmity either in the impugned judgment or in the order on sentence of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."




Read the order of High Court of Delhi in Sarita Handa v. Union of India & Ors dated 10.1.2018



About Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Sitemap