SURENDER SINGH Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.165/1992 is directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.82/86 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1992 held the appellants guilty under Sections 326/34 and further by a separate Order dated 29.8.1992 has been pleased to sentence the appellants to undergo RI for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for 10 days.

(2.) The prosecution case, as narrated by the learned Judge, is that "on 26-2-85 on the receipt of copy of D-D.No.6A regarding quarrel, SI Ram Singh (Public Witness-10) along with Constable On) Parkash and Constable Navin Kumar reached Sardhanand College. He learnt that the Injured had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital by someone. The Sub-Inspector could not find any person as witness to the occurrence and, therefore, proceeded to the hospital, where he came across injured Surender Singh s/o Narain Singh and obtained his MLC No.1060/85 whereupon Injured was declared "fit to make a statement. Accordingly, he recorded his statement to the following effect. Surender Singh s/o Narain Singh reported that he was a student of B.Com(H) Flna1 In Bhagat Singh College and that he had come that day at the Bus Stand, G.T.K. Road, Allpur at about 10.30 A.M. to go to his college. That President of S.S.N. College also came there along with his companions i.e. Yogender of Village Allpur and Anil of Village Badli. All of them were known to him. That, on seeing the complainant accused Surender Singh hurled an abuse at him and told that he had opposed him In the election for college union. The complainant objected to the abuses on which all of the three accused grappled with him. That, Yogender Kaushik and Anil Parashar caught hold of him by his arms while accused Surender took out a knife from the pocket of his pant, and gave two blows on the right side of his chest below the armpit. He started bleeding and them accused Surender gave a blow with the butt of the knife at his head and blood started oozing out from there also. As reported the occurrence was witnessed by Yudhvir Singh a Sports Secretary of S.S.N. College and Yogesh of Village Alipur as they were present at the place of occurrence. That, Yudhvir Singh then took the Injured to Hindu ,Rao Hospital. On the above report of the complainant a case u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code. read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. was registered. During Investigation SI Ram Singh arrested the accused and after completing the Investigation put the challan to the court for trial against the accused for having committed an offence punishable u/s 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. because the result In the Medico Legal Report was declared as dangerous nature of In Juries on the person of the InJured.

(3.) The prosecution In order to establish their case examined as many as 10 witnesses. Of these Public Witness-5 is the star witness, who In his testimony has given a graphic picture of the Incident. His deposition Is challenged on the ground that Surender Singh, InJured deposes to the effect that a knife was taken out by the accused Surender Singh from the pocket of his trousers. But, while deposing In the Court this witness deposes that Surender" Singh (accused) took out the knife from his Jacket. Learned counsel submits that no Jacket was recovered. Further, it Is submitted that the witness has deposed to the effect that on falling to the ground he was hit on his head with the butt of a knife by accused Surender Singh. It Is not stated In his examinatlon-in-chlef. Another point challenging the testimony of this witness Is that two of the accused were apprehended at the spot, whereas the Investigating Officer deposes that accused was arrested subsequently. Having examined the testimony of Public Witness~5, Surender Singh, the Injured witness, I find that the contradictions appearing In his testimony are not of a nature that can be fatal to the prosecution's case. This witness has deposed In the Court after elapse of many years. The contradictions and/or Improvements can be attributed to lapse of memory. In any event, as already stated, they do not destroy the prosecution's case. The testimony of Public Witness~5 lends an air of assurance and has been corroborated by other evidence. Namely, from the medical evidence of Dr. R.K.Mehra, as also Head Constable Sukhbir Singh, Public Witness-2 and Constable Ram Prasad, Public Witness-3. Looking at the totality of the ,facts, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused.