CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11th July, 1987 at about 6:30 a.m. Sgt. Shivji Roy PW9 got recorded an information at Police Station Nazafgarh vide D.D. Entry No. 9A Ex. PW1/A stating that one Kishan Singh has been killed by Chaman Lal, a washer man, in a quarrel and Chaman Lal has been detained by Sergeant Dahiya in the guard room so police be sent and action be taken. On this information, S.I. Hari Ram reached at the spot and recorded the statement of Mohan Singh PW2, the son of the deceased vide Ex. PW2/A, who was present at the spot. He stated that their neighbour Chaman Lal lives in dhobi quarter No. 27 and a quarrel was going on between them and Chaman Lal and his children from the last 4 -5 years. On 10th July, 1987 at about 9:30 p.m., Chaman Lal and his children picked up a quarrel with them which was pacified by the neighbours Anand Ballabh Pandey and Dharampal. Thereafter they all went to sleep. He was sleeping outside his house and his parents were sleeping inside. At about 2.00 a.m. in the night, Chaman Lal came holding a danda in his hand and gave danda blow on his right leg and hand. On his raising an alarm, his parents came out of the house. Chaman Lal hurled abuses and stated that he would finish the quarrel by killing him and gave danda blows on the head of his father. Anand Ballabh Pandey, their neighbor tried to intervene and save his father, however, Chaman Lal kept on giving danda blows to his father due to which his father fell down on the road. Thereafter, Chaman Lal tried to escape and while he was running, he fell down in front of his house due to which he sustained injuries. This incident was witnessed by his mother, Anand Bhallabh Pandey, Dharampal and also by other neighbours. Thereafter, Dharampal and Anand Bhallabh Pandey went to inform the officers and Chaman Lal was apprehended at the spot and was taken by Sergeant Dahiya. The doctor declared his father dead. He further stated that Chaman Lal had killed his father to take revenge and had come with complete preparation. On the statement of Mohan Singh, FIR No. 250/1987 under Section 302 IPC was registered at P.S. Nazafgarh and after completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed. The learned Trial Judge framed charges under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 323 IPC against the Appellant. After recording the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and the defence evidence, learned Additional Session Judge, convicted the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 304 Part (II) IPC. Keeping in view the age of the Appellant and that he was the only support to his family, the Appellant was awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 13,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. In case the fine was realized, Rs. 10,000/ - was directed to be paid to the wife of the deceased as compensation. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence are under challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant contends that the prosecution had cited allegedly four eye witnesses of the incident PW2 Mohan Singh s/o the deceased, PW10 Gobindi w/o the deceased, PW5 Dharampal and PW12 Anand Ballabh Pandey, both neighbours living in the vicinity. Though, PW5 appeared for examination -in -chief, but since he did not appear for cross -examination his testimony could not be looked into and thus the prosecution is left with the witnesses PW2, PW10 and PW12. It is urged that even as per the testimony of PW2 in the Court, he could not have witnessed the incident when danda blows were given on the head of his father as in his cross -examination he has deposed that immediately after receiving injury, he ran away and had gone to call Dharampal and Dharampal had reached the place of occurrence prior to PW2. Moreover, as per PW10 Gobindi w/o deceased, Dharampal had reached the spot after Kishan Singh had expired. Therefore, PW2 cannot be an eyewitness of the incident. It is further urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that PW2 is not a reliable witness as according to Dr. Vijay Laxmi who has been examined as PW6, the injuries suffered by PW2 were superficial in nature and could be self -suffered. PW2 in his testimony has stated that he suffered injuries caused by the danda blows given to him by the Appellant on his left foot however as per the extracts of emergency register, the injury recorded on his person was a blunt injury on the right knee, contusion of 3 cm which could have been caused by friction against a hard substance. Thus PW2's version of the cause of injury on his person is contrary to the opinion of the medical expert who had examined him on the same day itself.

(3.) IT is next contended that the prosecution case falls flat as the Appellant had sustained injuries which according to PW7 Dr. Rajinder Rajan were opined to be caused by danda blows. Also the eye -witnesses have not explained the said injuries and they have all deposed that they had not seen any injury on the person of the accused on the day of the incident. Reliance is placed on Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar : AIR 1976 SC 2263 to contend that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused in the course of the occurrence. The circumstance of deliberate suppression of the injuries on the person of the accused is a very important circumstance to discredit the entire prosecution case. It is well settled proposition that fouler the crime, higher the proof and hence in a murder case where the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non -explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution's case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. It is further urged that the story of PW2, that accused while trying to run from the spot was obstructed by a stone lying on the road due to which he fell down and as a result of the same he sustained the injuries on his head cannot be believed as no stone from the spot has been taken into possession.