Crl.A.No.171/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 4th, 2010 + Crl.A.No.171/2010 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP with Ms.Richa Kapoor. Insp. Dinesh Kumar, P.S. Rajouri Garden. versus MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.B.S.Rana and Mr.Raj Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. On 15.02.2010 while granting leave to appeal, it was directed that the appeal would be listed at the end of “After Notice Miscellaneous Matters” on 04.03.2010 i.e. today. 2. Mr.M.N.Dudeja learned counsel for the State and Mr.B.S.Rana learned counsel for the respondent state that appeal may be heard today itself. Crl.A.No.171/2010 Page 2 of 5 3. With reference to the report Ex.PW-17/A of the ballistic expert Sh.K.C.Varshney PW-17, and the evidence of a fired cartridge being recovered from the spot where the crime took place, Sh.B.S.Rana learned counsel for the respondent very fairly concedes that there is evidence to link the cartridge with the Belgium pistol of which the licensed holder is the respondent. 4. Without going into any further nity-grity of the evidence, Mr.B.S.Rana learned counsel for the respondent very fairly concedes that notwithstanding the eye-witnesses turning hostile, through the medium of pistol, the used cartridge seized at the spot as also the report of the ballistic expert, it stands established that the pistol of the respondent was the weapon of offence. 5. Briefly noted case of the prosecution is that at a marriage procession outside Sai Vatika, when celebrations were on, a bullet got fired which hit Rajender on the forehead and traversing upward lodged itself in the scalp. The respondent was the one who had fired. He was apprehended at the spot and beaten. 6. Since eye-witnesses have turned hostile, there is no evidence as to what preceded the firing but in view of the Crl.A.No.171/2010 Page 3 of 5 afore-noted facts, Sh.M.N.Dudeja learned counsel for the State concedes that at best the act of the respondent attracts the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. 7. The appellant has remained in jail for a period of 8 months. 8. In the decision reported as 2005 (116) DLT 634 Nehru Jain Vs. State NCT of Delhi in a somewhat similar facts where a gun shot was fired from a revolver during a marriage procession, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo a sentence of 2 years with a direction that accused would pay compensation in sum of Rs.3.5 lacs (Rupees Three Lacs & Fifty Thousand Only). The compensation awarded by the Court was in exercise of the power vested under Section 357 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Suffice would it be to state that a wanton act of celebration during marriage, resulting in the death of some person does not attract criminality as is conventionally understood. There is no motive for the crime. There is no desire to seek any pecuniary gain or cause any pecuniary loss to anyone. There is neither hatred nor anger much less any kind of enmity against the deceased. Crl.A.No.171/2010 Page 4 of 5 10. Noting that the respondent has his roots in society and is gainfully employed running a retail shop and is having a wife and two young children; further nothing that the respondent is not involved in any kind of criminal activity, noting further that learned counsel for the respondent and the respondent who is present in person said that within two months from today the compensation of Rs.3.5 lacs would be paid in the name of Mrs.Surinder Kaur (mother of the deceased). We are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned judgment/order dated 15.05.2009 acquitting the appellant and awarding appropriate compensation. 11. The respondent is convicted for having committed the offence of culpable homicide nor amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. The sentence which is imposed upon the respondent is to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone. Additionally, the respondent shall pay compensation in sum of Rs.3.5 lacs by tendering the pay order/banker’s cheque in the name of Mrs.Surinder Kaur. 12. The pay order/banker’s cheque would be handed over by the respondent to his counsel Sh.B.S.Rana, Advocate from whose office the same may be collected by Mrs.Surinder Kaur or her husband Hardyal Singh. Crl.A.No.171/2010 Page 5 of 5 13. Sh.Hardyal Singh is present in Court and is identified by Inspector Dinesh Kumar P.S. Rajauri Garden. Mr.B.S.Rana states that he has familiarized himself with Sh.Hardyal Singh and would hand over the banker’s cheque/pay order to him. 14. It is agreed that Sardar Hardyal Singh would collect the banker’s cheque/pay order from the office of Sh.B.S.Rana on 03.05.2010. 15. The address of Mr.B.S.Rana, Advocate from where the banker’s cheuque/pay order would be collected is: 36A, AD Block, Power Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi-110 088. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J SURESH KAIT, J MARCH 4, 2010 ‘mr’