RAJ KUMAR AND UDHEY SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amidst some of the posh colonies of South Delhi is a village known as Chirag Delhi. On June 5, 1983 at about 10.30 A.M., it lost one of its residents. He was stablled to death. Jai Bhagwan was his name. The prosecution claims that It was the handiwork of Raj Kumar. Pawan Kumar and Udhey Singh who too are residents of the same village. We are told that both the sides were consumed by the fire of hatred for each other and this provided the motive. Basant Ram, Deen Dayal, Kalu Ram and Murari Lal (Public Witness s 1, 2, 4 & 5 respectively) were cited as the eye witnesses. The trial court returned the verdict against the accused. It convicted and sentenced them under section 302 with the assistance of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That is how the two appeals have come up before us.

(2.) With as many as four persons produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the occurrence, it considers itself ensconced in a comfortable seat, and undoubtedly, if the witnesses are believed; the appellants would find themselves in deep woods. The question, however, is, should they be ? It is this question which stares at us and craves for an answer. How much we wish we too could, like Sherlock Holmes, nod our head and say : "Elementary. Dr. Watson."

(3.) First, a brief introduction of the central characters. Bant Ram, Deen Dayal, Kalu Ram and Murari Lal (Public Witness s 1, 2, 4 and 5 respectively). All residents of the same village. All intertwined. All closely knit with the deceased. Ail sworn enemies of the appellants. All endowed with an astounding capacity to manufacture gargantuan lies.