STATE Vs. RAJBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment we propose to dispose of Murder Reference No. 2 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 499/99 of the appellant Rajbir Singh.

(2.) The fuels giving rise to the murder reference and the appeal are as follows:- ' Deceased Samson Massey along with his wife Mrs. Dolphin Massey (Public Witness -7) and daughter Ms. Preeti Massey (Public Witness -5) were residing at 122-Q, Sector 4, PushpVihar, New Delhi. Samson Massey was a tenant of one room and a kitchen in the said premises under Yad Ram, father of appellant Rajbir Singh. The other room in the house was under the occupation of Yad Ram and his family including Rajbir Singh. The appellant is alleged to have been wanting the deceased to vacate the house as he was suspecting the deceased to be having an affair with his sister. On April 29, 1997 around 9.00 p.m. when the deceased was present in the house along with his family members including Dolphin Massey and Preeti Massey, there was knock at the door. Samson Massey proceeded towards the door followed by Dolphin Massey. The deceased opened the door and found the appellant standing-there. His clothes were torn and he was having injury on his left eye. Samson Massey is stated to have enquired from the appellant the reason for his condition. The appellant without saying anything went inside & brought a knife and started giving blows to Samson Massey. At this stage Dolphin Massey raised an alarm as a result whereof Preeti Massey came out of the from. After inflicting the injuries the appellant fled the site. In the meantime, while the incident was in progress Dolphin Massey rushed to the house of a neighbour and called the P.C.R. Thereupon information was conveyed to Shri Surinder Singh, Addl. SHO Malviya Nagar through wireless at about 9.15. p.m. The information was recorded at Police Station Malviya Nagar vide DD No. 29 (Ext.PW-3/A). Both Dolphin Massey and Preeti Massey took the deceased to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in aP.C.R.van,whereDr. Aampani Sinha (Public Witness -4) declared Samson Massey to have been brought dead. The statement Ext.PW.7/A of Dolphin Massey was recorded by Inspector Sorinder Singh (Public Witness -12) at the hospital itself. The Inspector made an endorsement on the statement of Dolphin Massey and sent the rukka Ext.PW12/A around 11.25 p.m. to Police Station Malviya Nagar. At about 11.40 p.m. on the same day, viz. April "29, 1997, FIR No. 418/97 (EX.PW-I/A) was registered vide DD No.25A under section 302 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Malviya Nagar. The appellant was arrested at about 2.30 a.m. on April 30, 1997 from T' point Khanpur Patri. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant on July 28, 1997 before the court of Ms.Renu Bhatnagar, Metropolitan Magistrate, who committed the case to sessions on July 30,1997 for July 31, 1997. On October 22, 1997, the Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against him under section 302 Indian Penal Code The appellant pleaded not guilty to the .charge-and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses to prove the charge. However, the appellant did not lead any defence evidence. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record convicted the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code on August 19, 1999 & by a further order dated August 30, 1999 sentenced.him todeath. While the appellant filed an appeal against the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated August 19, 1999 and August 30, 1999, the learned Additional Sessiotos Judge made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence. This is how the matter is before us.

(3.) The main stay of the prosecution story rests on the eye witness accounts of the incident rendered by Preeti Massey Public Witness -5 and Dolphin Massey Public Witness -7. According to the 'statement of Preeti Massey; on April 29, 1997 between 8 p.m. & 9 p.m. when the family was sitting in their room after the meals, somebody, pressed the door bell. The deceased, followed by her, went to open the door. The door was opened by the deceased. They found appellant Rajbir standing at the door. He had injury on his left eye and seemed to be in a bad condition. The deceased asked him as to what was the matter, Rajbir without replying to the query, went inside the house and picked up a knife and started hitting the deceased. Upon this Dolphin Massey started shouting, whereupon her mother came out from her room. Her other sisters and brothers started crying. She went into her room and brought a hammer and threw the same on the appellant. He went after her but his father tripped him as a result of which befell down on him and again started inflicting injuries with the knife. Her mother went to the neighbours house to ring up the police. Police came on spot but meanwhile appellant had run away. To the same effect is the statement of Dolphin Massey Public Witness -7. She stated that the family'including the deceased were sitting in the house at about 8.30 p.m. after the meals, when they heard a knock on the door, her husband went to open the door followed by her daughter. After some time she heard shrieks of her daughter and she. came out and saw the appellant inflicting injuries on her husband with aknife. On scrutinising the evidence of Public Witness -5 and Public Witness -7, we find that there is nothing inherently improbable or unreliable in their statements. They are natural witnesses of the incident as the 'murder had taken place at their place of abode and that too at the time when normally they would be at home. In State of U.P. Vs. Noorie 1996 SCC (Cr!) 945 the Supreme Court held that while assessing and evaluating the evidence of eye witnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles, namely, whether in the circumstances of the case it was possible for the eye withnesses to be present at the scene and whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. Having regard to the above principle, the testimony of Public Witness -5 and Public Witness -7 cannot be discarded as the learned counsel for the appellant was us to do on the basis of conjectures and speculations. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no credence can be placed on the statements of Public Witness -5 and Public Witness -7 as actually they had not seen the incident. It was canvassed that the relations between the deceased and the appellant were strained in as much as the latter had asked the former to leave the premises since the appellant was suspecting that the deceased was having an evil eye on his sister. He also submitted that Public Witness -5 and Public Witness -7 were interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajaram and others Vs. State of M.P. (1992) 3 SCC 634, State of Punjab Vs. Mukhtiar Singh and another (1975) 4 SCC 590, Bir Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 4 SCC 420 and Hardev Singh Vs. Harbhej Singh and others 1997 SCC (Crl) 5 in support of his submission that the Court should look for corroboration of their testimony, they being close relations of the victim of the offence.