DHARAM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For a princely sum of Rs. 51 Pintoo (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) lost his life as a result of stab injury and appellant, Dharam Pal Singh, (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is stated to be author of the crime.

(2.) Background facts which led to the trial of accused, his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short 1PC) and award of sentence for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000.00 with default stipulation of one year imprisonment is essentially as follows:

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel submitted that evidence of the witness suffers from infirmity of very vital nature, and should not have been relied upon. It is stated that there is gulf of difference between the time of alleged occurrence and reporting at the police station. The diary entry of 1.9.1990 at the police station reveals that at 2:40 pm deceased had been knifed by a Sardar and was removed to hospital. ASI Surat Singh and SHO M.S. Vermas (PW 13) were intimated. They reached Hindu Rao Hospital. The dead body of a boy of 25 year was obtained who had been declared to have died by the time he was brought. Since there was nobody else there expect Vivekanand (PW1) has given the statement. If the prosecution version is accepted, then at 2:15 p.m. PW1 claims to have seen the occurrence while he was talking to PW2 near railway canteen in West passenger hall. It was his case that the deceased was earlier working at a tea stall. These factors do not appears to have been corroborated by the evidence on record. In essence the stand is that evidence tendered is not cogent and credible. Alternative plea of learned counsel for the accused was that the occurrence took place in the course of sudden quarrel, Exception 4 to Section 300 applies and therefore Section 302 Indian Penal Code had no application. It is also submitted that since only one blow was given Section 302 does not apply. According to the counsel for the State, the judgment of the learned trial Court suffers from no infirmity. A detailed analysis of evidence was done and a clear case for conviction under Section 302 is made out.