VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notwithstanding the fact that Paras Ram PW-1 who also received injuries simultaneously at the point of time and at the same place where deceased Mukesh @Babloo was stabbed, after fully supporting the case of the prosecution when he appeared as a witness on 21.3.2007, turning turtle on 21.5.2008 when he was cross-examined, counsel for the appellant concedes that there is sufficient evidence wherefrom it is apparent that for unexplainable reasons Paras Ram PW-1 chose to resile from truth and that with reference to the testimony of Const.Suresh PW-15 as also the MLC Ex.PW-7/A and the testimony of Dr.Jatinder PW-7 who examined Paras Ram soon after the incident, it stands established that it is the appellant who had inflicted the knife injury on Mukesh @Babloo as also caused the injury with a knife to Paras Ram PW-1.

(2.) But, learned counsel for the appellants urges that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the offence made out, with reference to the act of the appellant, is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel points out that as per the case of the prosecution and even the testimony of PW-1 in examination-in-chief, the appellant had no animus against the victim. The victim was unknown to him. A verbal altercation took place when everybody was watching Ramlila. Notwithstanding the fact that after the verbal altercation the appellant went to his house and returned with a knife, but he did nothing except stand at the same place to watch Ramlila. Mukesh @Babloo who was working as a volunteer told the appellant to sit down, at which something happened, compelling the appellant to inflict a single knife blow in the stomach of Mukesh @Babloo. Counsel urges that it was obviously a case of the appellant wanting to cause an injury on Mukesh @Babloo intending to cow down Mukesh to compel the appellant not to stand at the place where the appellant was standing to watch Ramlila.