- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Virender v. State (Nct) Of Delhi .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal concerned a conviction based on concurrent findings of fact that the appellant, Virender, inflicted stab injuries on the deceased, Lallu. The trial court and the High Court accepted and relied upon the testimony of three eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court heard the appellant’s counsel and considered whether any legal basis existed to interfere with the concurrent factual findings and the resulting conviction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s act could be brought within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, so as to mitigate the offence from murder.
- Whether the appellant lacked the intention to inflict the particular injury, despite the injury being sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, warranting any reduction of culpability.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant sought to invoke Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, contending that the case fell within its scope.
- In the alternative, the appellant argued that the fatal injury was not really intended, even though the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court treated the matter as one involving concurrent findings on facts, noting that both the trial court and the High Court had believed the testimony of three eyewitnesses establishing that the appellant stabbed the deceased.
On the attempt to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the Court found the factual circumstances incompatible with the exception because the appellant had armed himself with a lethal weapon while the deceased was unarmed. The Court reasoned that where an armed offender uses a lethal weapon against an unarmed person, the offender is deemed to have taken undue advantage, and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Exception 4.
On the alternative submission regarding lack of intention to cause the injury (despite its sufficiency to cause death in the ordinary course), the Court held that the evidence did not support the appellant’s position, and therefore did not warrant interference.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The Court dismissed the appeal.
As a direct consequence, the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court—accepting the eyewitness testimony and attributing the stabbing to the appellant—remained undisturbed, and the appellant did not receive the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The opinion does not indicate any broader implications beyond the disposal of this appeal, and it does not purport to set any new precedent.
Order
1. We heard Ms Kumud Lata Das, learned advocate in extenso. This is a case of concurrent findings on facts that appellant Virender had inflicted the stab injuries on the deceased Lallu. The testimony of the three eyewitnesses was believed by the trial court and the High Court.
2. Learned counsel made an endeavour to bring the case within the ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Apparently the facts will not help because the appellant had armed himself with a lethal weapon whereas the deceased was unarmed. In such a situation, when the armed offender took undue advantage of that weapon against an unarmed person he cannot get the benefit of Exception 4.
3. Learned counsel made an alternative attempt to show that the injury which the appellant inflicted on the deceased was not really intended by him though the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. But on that aspect also the evidence in this case would not help the appellant.
4. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
Alert