BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the night intervening 30th and 31st July 1983 one Kewal Kishan was done to death by the appellant at about 1-30 A.M."while the deceased was sleeping on a col spread outside his house No. 2/21, Vijay Nagar, Delhi. At the same time the appellant had also caused injuries to his cousin sister Kumari Seema, daughter of Jagjit Singh. This, was done pursuant to an attempt to kill her. The weapon of offence , used is sword Ex. P-14, recovered pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant betore Shri Harnath Singh,Sub-lnspector,(P.W. 19).The F.I.R. was lodged by Ranjit Kumar, brother of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the appellant attacking. Kumari Seema with a sharp edged weapon and then running away from the scene. Simultaneously, be .also found his brother Kewal Kishan having been murdered. Jagjit Singh, father of Kumari Seema. and Ranjit Kumar, brother Of the deceased, tried to apprehend the appellant but did not succeed. Ranjit Kumar also informed the police that on that very night a quarrel had taken place between the appellnt and the deceased on spreading of cot. At the time of the incident Kumari Seema along with her mother were sleeping on separate cots outside their house No. 3/23, Vijay Nagar, Delhi. The appellant was found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and seatenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 Indian Penal Code He was also found guilty under Section 507 Indian Penal Code and was awarded five years' rigorous imprisonment on this count. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) . At trial the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The testimonies of Public Witness I Ranjit Kumar and his brother-in law Sushil Kumar (P.W. 8) have not been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given proper and cogent reasons for refusing to place any reliance on their testimony and we find no scope for disturbing the same. Reliance by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been placed on the testimony ofP.W.5 Kumari Seema and her father Jagjit Singh (P.W.6). The conclusion of guilty is also founded on the circumstantial evidence, i.e. a letter Ex.P-12 written by the appellant and found on his cot soon after the incident and also recovery of the sword Ex. P-14 made pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the accused. Dr. Bharat Singh (P.W. 7) after seeing the weapon of the offence has also opined that the injuries sustained are possible with this weapon. According to him, the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

(3.) . The cause of death of the deceased .and the injuries sustained by the deceased and Kumari Seema are not indispute. We-do not therefore, purpose to go into this - aspect. Mr. Sud. learned counsel for the appellant, submits that this case presents some special features inasmuch as even if the. prosecution story and evidence is .relied upon, its dissection would indicate that the offence was committed by the appellant while having lost control on himself and on a sudden and grave provocation.