RAMESH Vs. STATE N C T OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeal arise from a common judgment dated 16 th April, 2001 convicting the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and order dated 4 th May, 2001 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 2 nd June, 1995 at about 10.15/10.30 PM when Om Prakash was crossing the road for going to his house he was chased by the Appellants and S, a juvenile who were armed with knives. The Appellant Ramesh gave a knife blow on the abdomen and S gave a knife blow on the chest of Om Prakash. When Om Prakash raised an alarm, S fled away and Appellant Ashok had snatched knife from S and gave a knife blow on the right thigh of Om Prakash. Appellant Ramesh fired a shot towards Om Prakash from a country made revolver. Om Prakash became unconscious. On medical examination he was found to have received 7 clean incised wounds. The injuries were opined to be grievous in nature.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellants contend that out of the two material witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW3 the injured and PW4 the complainant, PW4 has not supported the prosecution case. The testimony of PW4 shows that either he did not witness the incident or the incident did not take place as alleged in the prosecution case. The incident occurred at about 10.30 PM on 2 nd June, 1995, however the FIR was registered at 1.45 PM on 3 rd June, 1995. There is no explanation of the delay in registration of FIR. PW4 did not accompany the injured to the hospital which show that he was a planted witness. PW4 is allegedly a witness to all the recovery memos etc., however he has turned hostile. The other witness of the recovery, that is, Constable Om Prakash has not been examined and, thus, the recoveries have not been proved. Though the case of the prosecution is that one knife was recovered at the instance of Ashok and other at the instance of S the juvenile, however the sketch of knife and the description shows that the knives were identifical. Thus, the knives have been planted on the Appellants. No weapon of offence has been recovered from the possession of Appellant Ramesh. Also, the moharar malkhana has not deposed about the depositing of the knife and the blood stained clothes in the malkhana which further shows that the recoveries are planted. There are material improvements in the statement of PW3, the injured. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has not stated that he became unconscious after the injury, however this exaggerated version has been stated in the Court. PW10 the Investigating Officer in his testimony has stated that after receiving DD No. 38A he reached the spot where he found that the injured has already been removed to the hospital. He went to the hospital, however he did not find any eye-witness even at the hospital. Even on returning back to the spot the Investigating Officer did not find any relative but PW4 the complainant met him at the spot. No other witness has been associated though both PW3 and PW4 are residents of same locality. DD No. 38A also reflects that the incident had not taken place at the spot. Even as per the statement made in the Court, no intention to kill can be attributed to the Appellants. Though it is alleged that prior to this incident both the Appellants had attacked the injured and his brother and FIR was recorded, however the same has not been proved. Thus, the alleged motive is not proved. PW1 Dr. S. Bhalla has not stated that the injured was unconscious or unfit for statement at the time of admission to the hospital. The Appellants have not been named in the alleged statement recorded in the MLC. PW4 in his statement has attributed no role to S, however PW3 has included the name of S and thus, the statement of PW3 is full of exaggeration. Learned counsel further contends that mere recovery of blood stains clothes does not prove that the clothes belonged to the Appellants. The Appellants have been falsely implicated and, thus, they be acquitted of the charges.