BABU RAM Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeals Nos. 116/84 and 131/84 Criminal Appeal No. 116/84 was filed by convicted accused Lala Ram and Om Prakash. Criminal Appeal No. 131/84 was filed by accused Thakur Singh. The three accused were tried and convicted for the offence of murder, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 52/82.

(2.) The prosecution case was that a few days prior to the date of the incident, wherein Padam Singh lost his life, a quarrel had taken place between Padam Singh and the accused. But the father and brother of Padam Singh intervened and pacified them. On 19-2-1982 at about 4.15 p.m. when Padam Singh was passing through Gali No. 4, the three accused caught him and told him that he was saved earlier by his father and brother but they would not leave him on that day. Om Prakash held Padam Singh from behind and the other two accused, namely, Thakur Singh and Lala Ram inflicted injuries on the front and back of Padam Singh with daggers. Babu Ram, father of Padam Singh, who was following Padam Singh, saw this incident and raised cries for saving his son and catching the accused. Hearing his cries many people, including Prabhu Dayal, Pyare Lal, Sua Lal and others, came there. Babu Ram himself was able to catch hold of accused Lala Ram. Prabhu Dayal ran after Om Prakash and caught him. Thakur Singh was caught while running away by Pyare Lal and Sua Lal. Meanwhile the police party headed by sub-inspector Dharam Pal, which was on patrolling duty, reached that spot and came to know about the incident. The three accused who were caught by that time were handed over to the police. On these allegations all the three accused were tried for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) The prosecution examined Babu Ram (PW-3) Pyare Lal (PW-4) Prabhu Dayal (PW-6) and Sua Lal (PW-7) as eye witnesses. It also lead other supporting and corroborative evidence. The trial Court rejected the contention of the accused that there was delay in recording the FIR and that the delay was because till the next day morning names of the assailants were not known. It believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and held all the three accused guilty.