Case title: Mandeep Vs. State of Haryana
Case no: CRA-D-34-DB-2012
Order on: May 21, 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill with Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Fact of the case:
In this case, the incident occurred on the night of March 25, 2010, in the village of Panori. The complainant, Mange Ram, father of the deceased Mohinder Singh, reported that Mohinder had gone to water plants and was called by Mandeep, who initiated a scuffle with him. During this altercation, Mandeep stabbed Mohinder in the stomach. Other accused, Sompal and Karam Singh @ Karmu, allegedly assisted Mandeep and attempted to attack the complainant. Mohinder succumbed to his injuries shortly after the attack. The FIR was registered based on Mange Ram’s statement. The police conducted an investigation, which included the recovery of a knife on Mandeep’s disclosure. Mandeep was arrested on March 28, 2010, while the other two accused were arrested earlier on March 26, 2010. The trial court framed charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Mandeep and his co-accused, Sompal and Karam Singh @ Karmu. However, Sompal and Karam Singh were acquitted due to a lack of evidence, while Mandeep was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Issues framed by court:
Whether the present case would fall within the definition of “Murder” or “Culpable Homicide” not amounting to murder under Section 300 of IPC.
Legal provisions:
Section 302 of IPC : This section deals with the punishment for murder. Under Section 302, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 of IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellant, Mandeep, contended that the injuries imposed on Mohinder Singh were in self-defence. The argument was that there was a scuffle, and the knife injury was not a premeditated act but an act to protect himself. The appellant’s counsel pointed out inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant Mange Ram (PW-2) and Rajo Devi (PW-3). They argued that these inconsistencies cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events. The defence highlighted the close friendship between Mandeep and Mohinder, suggesting that there was no motive for Mandeep to intentionally kill Mohinder. They often spent time together and shared meals. The defence argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to conclusively prove that Mandeep had the intention to commit murder. They claimed that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the crime.
Contentions of Respondents:
The prosecution depend on heavily on the eye-witness testimonies of Mange Ram (PW-2) and Rajo Devi (PW-3). They argued that these witnesses provided a consistent and credible reason of the events leading to Mohinder’s death, clearly implicating Mandeep as the assailant. The knife used in the crime was recovered based on Mandeep’s disclosure statement. The respondent argued that this recovery was crucial evidence linking Mandeep to the murder. The post-mortem report provided by Dr. Jyoti Sabharwal (PW-4) confirmed that the cause of death was a knife injury to the stomach. The prosecution contended that the nature of the injury was consistent with the witnesses’ accounts of Mandeep’s actions. The prosecution argued that Mandeep’s behaviour after the incident, including fleeing the scene, indicated his guilt. They contended that an innocent person acting in self-defence would not have fled but would have sought help or reported the incident immediately. The prosecution maintained that there was no immediate provocation or threat to Mandeep that justified his use of a knife. They argued that the stabbing was a deliberate act rather than an act of self-defence.
Court analysis & Judgement:
The testimonies of Mange Ram (PW-2) and Rajo Devi (PW-3) were found credible despite minor inconsistencies. They described the events consistently with the FIR. The court acknowledged the close friendship between Mandeep and Mohinder but noted that conflicts can arise unexpectedly in close relationships. The absence of a clear motive did not weaken the prosecution’s case. The court examined the self-defence claim and found it unconvincing. The deep stab wound indicated a deliberate act rather than a defensive one. Mandeep’s flight from the scene further undermined his self-defence argument. The medical evidence supported the prosecution’s narrative. The post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death as a knife wound inflicted by Mandeep, consistent with a deliberate act of violence. The medical evidence supported the prosecution’s narrative. The post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death as a knife wound inflicted by Mandeep, consistent with a deliberate act of violence.
The court upheld Mandeep’s conviction under Section 302 IPC, concluding that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that he intentionally inflicted the fatal wound on Mohinder Singh. The life imprisonment sentence and the fine of Rs. 5,000/- were upheld. The court deemed the punishment appropriate given the severity of the crime. Mandeep’s appeal was dismissed. The court found no merit in the defence arguments and affirmed the trial court’s judgment as sound and based on thorough evidence evaluation.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
