File Pic
The Delhi High Court recently commuted a life sentence to eight years' imprisonment for a man initially convicted of murder, modifying the conviction to culpable homicide instead. The case involved the death of Mohd Mumtaz, a mechanic in Ajeet Nagar, Seelampur, Delhi, following a shooting incident in December 2014. An FIR for the incident was registered on December 16, 2014, and the appellant, identified as Rahul, was subsequently arrested on December 21, 2014.
Rahul had been found guilty of murder, attempted murder, and violations of the Arms Act by the Karkardooma Court in July 2022, with sentencing issued on September 2, 2022. Following this conviction, Rahul filed an appeal, challenging both the guilty verdict and the sentence. After reviewing the appeal, a division bench led by Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma reevaluated the evidence and decided to commute his life sentence, reducing it to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.
The High Court examined the circumstances surrounding the shooting, considering the way the weapon was fired and the events leading up to the fatal incident. It determined that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt that the case met the legal criteria of murder under any of the clauses of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Consequently, the court ruled that the incident fell under Part II of Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which pertains to incidents resulting in unintentional death without the intent typically associated with murder.
In its judgement, the court modified Rahul's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, convicting him instead of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of Section 304. Additionally, the court changed the conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 of the IPC to Section 308, which covers attempts to cause culpable homicide rather than murder.
ALSO READ
Supreme Court stays auction of Dalit farmer’s land over loan dispute
India and China begin orderly troop disengagement in eastern Ladakh
'Need to shift to renewable energy, public transport to tackle air pollution'
Terrorists keep coming and we will keep killing them, says Farooq Abdullah
Bjp claims JMM and allies settling Rohingyas in Jharkhand as vote bank
The High Court noted that the nominal roll dated February 20, 2024, indicated that Rahul had already served approximately five years in custody, including remissions. The appellant, now 30, has a family including a wife and a young daughter, with the court records also mentioning his expectation of another child at the time of sentencing.
As per the new ruling, Rahul will serve an eight-year term along with a fine of â¹15,000 for the culpable homicide conviction. For the offence under Section 308 of the IPC, his sentence was limited to the time he had already served, with an additional fine of â¹5,000. The sentence for the Arms Act violation was similarly adjusted to time served, accompanied by a fine of â¹5,000.
This judgement reflects a reassessment of both the evidence and the charges, modifying the original life sentence to account for the specific circumstances of the case, as reported by ANI.
(With inputs from ANI)
