Chhotu Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....or perverse or one which no reasonable person could have made. a claim based on merely legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right. its uniqueness lies in the fact that it covers the entire span of time, present, past and future. how significant is the statement that today is tomorrows yesterday. the present is as we experience it, the past is a present memory and future is a present expectation. for legal purposes, expectation is not same as anticipation. legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law. indian evidence act,1872[c.a.no.1/1872] section 115: [dr. arijit pasayat & p. sathasivam, jj] promissory estoppel/legitimate expectation alleged assurance by state government for purchase of 500 sets of compilation of local laws from publisher refusal to place any order petition seeking direction to maintain and keep promise claim based on departmental note to which concurrence of various departments/ministries not obtained there was interpolation of document and also dispute as to whether intended purchase was of volumes or sets - held, some oral expression of desire by the then law..........bone. infiltration of the blood was present at the fractured ends. after removing the skull there was extra dural haemotoma was found lying in whole of the temporal region and parietal region of left side.6. admittedly, this was the only one injury found on the body of the deceased. this injury was attributed to the appellant.7. in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34 i.p.c. is inappropriate. in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met if the conviction of the appellant is altered from section 302/34 i.p.c. to one under section 304 part ii of the i.p.c. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.8. accordingly the impugned judgment passed by the high court is set aside and the appellant is convicted under section 304 part ii of the i.p.c. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.9. the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 489-DB of 1999.

4. The appellant along with the co-accused Bhallu was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. The High Court while setting aside the conviction of the co-accused Bhallu, affirmed the conviction of the appellant herein. This Court while entertaining the special leave petition of the appellant, issued notice confined to the question of the nature of the offence.

5. Dr. Daya Nand (PW-1), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Dilbagh has opined as follows:

There was no external mark of injuries over the body except a diffused swelling over left temporal region. On cut section of this echymosis was present in the skin and sub-cutaneous tissues. On further dissection on removing the scalp haemotoma was present under the scalp in left temporal, left parietal and right temporal region. After removing this haemotoma skull bone was seen and there was fracture on left temporal bone. Infiltration of the blood was present at the fractured ends. After removing the skull there was extra dural haemotoma was found lying in whole of the temporal region and parietal region of left side.

6. Admittedly, this was the only one injury found on the body of the deceased. This injury was attributed to the appellant.

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. is inappropriate. In our considered view, the ends of justice would be met if the conviction of the appellant is altered from Section 302/34 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

8. Accordingly the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

9. The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.