HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE DELHI ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged for the offence of murder of Sudhir on March 19, 1973 at 2 noon. The Trial Court acquitted him of the charge, but on appeal the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Thus this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1972.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on March 19, 1973 being the Holiday, the appellant and one Rajan Mani went to the shop of the deceased bearing No. 1259/A/B situated at Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi and requested him to close the tea shop which he was vending and asked him to take part in playing Holi. Thereon the deceased refused to accede to their request. Thereafter, in a huff the appellant and Rajan Mani went away with a dire threat to the deceased and his father, Ved Prakash, P.W. 1, who remonstrated against the threat. One hour thereafter the appellant came holding a Gupti (sharp edged weapon) in his right hand to the shop by which time the deceased was closing the shop. Rajan Mani took the deceased in his arms and held him back. The appellant inflicted a fatal blow near the neck and also gave other minor injuries. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 have seen the occurrence. The deceased was made to walk for a distance of 25-30 feet and thereafter he fell down at the house of P.W. 4. Then he was taken to the hospital. The deceased died two days thereafter, namely, on March 21, 1973. P.W. 12, the doctor, conducted the autopsy and found that there were as many as nine injuries and Injury No. 2 was found to be fatal which in the opinion of the doctor was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. P.W. 3 is another independent witness, who happened to come over to the area to his sister's house to play Holi.

(3.) The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 3 on the ground that P.W. 1 did not disclose the name of the P.W. 3 either in his initial statement under Section 161 or in his supplementary statement. The name of P.W. 3 was also not disclosed in the FIR. The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded. As a result, his evidence was suspect. The evidence of P.W. 1 was also disbelieved. The High Court considered the evidence afresh and found that P.W. 3 is an independent witness. P.W. 1 being the father of the deceased is not interested to exclude the real offender and implicate an innocent person as the assailant of his son and that, therefore, their evidence was found acceptable. The High Cort accordingly convicted the appellant and confirmed the acquittal of the co-accused, Rajan Mani.