RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the decision of the Allahabad High Court affirming the appellant's conviction under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment of life for that offence. Prosecution alleged that between 10 and 10. 15 p.m. in the night of January 2, 1970, a little distance away from the Hindon Bridge towards Ghaziabad on the G. T. Road, the appellant along with two others killed one Om Prakash by stabbing him with a knife. Six eyewitnesses were examined to support this charge. Of them, one was the Havildar Mir Singh (P. W. 4) and the other was a Police Constable Gyan Singh (P. W. 6). These two witnesses along with one Jagdish Singh were on guard duty at the Hindon Bridge. They were informed by some passers-by that a man was being stabbed at a distance of about two furlongs from the place where the guard room was located. On getting the information the three police personnel ran to the spot. With the help of the torchlight which one of them held, they saw from a distance that three persons were engaged in stabbing the deceased but when the torch was focussed, the assailants started decamping. They were chased. Two of them managed to escape but the appellant was caught with the knife stained with blood. The other two were not traced. The four other eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile.

(2.) The appellant in his defence took the stand that he was the driver of the taxi in which three persons came as passengers. Soon after the bridge had been crossed, the passengers started quarrelling among themselves. That diverted the attention of the appellant and resulted in a cyclist being dashed against. When the car came to a standstill the three people who were quarrelling among themselves got down and two of them started assaulting the deceased with a knife after going a little away from the road. The appellant went there to rescue the deceased. In that process his wearing apparel got blood soaked. After fatally assaulting the deceased the assailants ran away when some people started collecting there. He denied the recovery of the blood-stained knife from him. Four of the hostile witnesses supported the defence plea that the appellant had been attempting to rescue the deceased and had-not himself given any assault. The trial Court held that the hostile witnesses were not speaking the truth; it relied upon the two police witnesses, accepted the prosecution version that the blood-stained knife had been recovered from the appellant and drew support for the charge from the blood-stained wearing apparel to hold that it was he who had stabbed the deceased to death along with two other unknown people. Accordingly he was convicted under S. 302/34, IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(3.) The appellant appealed to the High Court against his conviction. Of the two police witnesses, one had denied seeing the appellant giving any knife blow while the other had made a firm statement that he did see the act of giving the knife blow. The High Court accepted the appellant's contention that neither had seen actual infliction of knife blow by the appellant. Once the evidence in regard to the infliction of the blows was discarded, the High Court proceeded to examine the circumstantial evidence to ascertain whether the charge can be said to have been established. These circumstances as indicated by the High Court are:(i) an attempt by the appellant to escape and his arrest after a chase; (ii) he being found to be in possession of the bloodstained knife; (iii) his clothes having become blood-stained; (iv) if the defence version was true, namely, that the appellant was trying to rescue the deceased, he would have received, injuries in the scuffle; and (v) if the appellant had really tried to intervene in the way he claims, he being a well built man could have saved the life of the deceased.