VIJENDER KUMAR @ VIJAY versus STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 28-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 368 
VIJENDER KUMAR @ VIJAY 
v. 
STATE OF DELHI 
, 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2009) 
APRIL 28, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
ss. 302 and s. 3_00, Exception 4 - Son of a bus operator, 
suspecting that the helper, a young boy, misappropriated a 
part of the bus fare, taking out a knife from his scooter and 
stabbing the boy on the abdomen - Victim died in hospital 
the same day - Conviction by trial court uls 302 - Affirmed 
D by High Court - HELD: The facts do not justify applicability 
of Exception 4 to s. 300 - Admittedly, there was no pre-
meditation in the incident - The requirement of a sudden fight 
is however missing - The facts show that there was no sudden 
quarrel and it was a unilateral act on the part of the accused 
as he lost his temper suspecting the deceased of having 
E misappropriated the fare. that he had been collecting - The 
deceased also had no role to play - The accused had taken 
undue advantage of his position inasmuch as he had run to 
the scooter, opened the boot, taken out a knife and caused 
the injury on the person of the deceased who was a young, 
F unarmed boy- It is also well settled that the number of injuries 
caused in such a case is not conclusive in determining the 
nature of the offence, but primarily the circumstances 
preceding the incident and not exclusively during the incident 
are to be seen - Appeal dismissed. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. of 2093 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.4.2009 of the High 
H 
368 
VIJENDER KUMAR @ VIJAY v. STATE OF DELHI 
369 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 351 of A 
2005. 
Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Brig. M.L. Khatter, Kusum Chaudhary 
for the Appellant. 
Ashok Bhan, Sadhana Sandhu, Anil Katiyar for the B 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. In the light of the limited notice that had been issued by 
this Court with regard to the nature of the offence on 29th July, · 
2009, only the bare facts pertaining to the case are necessary. 
.C 
2. Yogesh, the deceased was employed as a Helper in a D 
bus owned by the appellant's father. He was suspected of 
misappropriating a part of the fare that was being collected by 
him from passengers. On the 9th of April, 2002, when the pus 
was parked at the Karampura bus terminal, Delhi, the appellant 
questioned the deceased to find out if a part of the fare had 
E 
been withheld by him, but the deceased answered in 'the 
negative. The appellant, however, remained unconvinced. He, 
therefore, subjected the deceased to a personal search which 
resulted in the recovery of an amount of Rs.100/- from his 
person. The appellant got furious and started beating the 
F 
deceased. The deceased protested whereupon the appellant 
brought a knife from the boot of ~is scooter parked nearby and 
caused one injury with the knife in the abdomen of the 
deceased. The bus crew and the passengers advised the 
appellant to remove the deceased, who was then in a critical 
condition, to the hospital. The appellant thereupon assisted by G 
one, Kanhaiya took the injured on a two-wheeler to a private 
clinic but he was advised to take him to a hospital. The 
appellant, accordingly, took the· injured to the ESI Hospital and 
got him admitted at that place. The appellant also informed the 
. attending doctor that he had found the injured lying unconscious H 
> 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
on the roadside and as a good Samaritan had brought him to 
the hospital after having picked him from there. The Duty 
Constable at the ESI Hospital informed the police station 
regarding the admission of the injured on which Sub Inspector 
D.P. Kajala reached the hospital~nd found that the injured was 
B 
unfit to make a statement. A case under Section 307 of the IPC 
came to be registered against unknown persons. Yogesh died 
later that day in the ESI Hospital and the case was modified to 
one under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court found that all 
the eye witnesses had not supported the prosecution but relying 
c on the circumstantial evidence convicted the accused for an 
offence punishable under Section 3-02 of the IPC and 
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. An appeal 
taken to the High Court was also dismissed. 
3. The present appeal by way .. of special leave is limited 
D 
to the nature of the offence only on the understanding that as 
per the case of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.