RAM JANE Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants stand convicted by a Sessions Court for their having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code(-IPC- in short) vide judgment dated 16th September, 2006 and vide order dated 19th September, 2006 both of them have been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs. 2000 each with a default stipulation that in case of non-payment of fine they shall undergo further imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge both the convicted accused had filed separate appeals but since both the appeals were heard together they are now being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as appears from the trial Court record, was that on 26th May, 2005 at about 6.15 a.m. PW-6 Sikandar noticed PW-10 Pappu @ Lightbaj lying in an injured condition near the railway track on platform no. 6/7 at the New Delhi Railway Station. Since the injured was bleeding PW-6 lifted him up and kept him on a handcart and brought him outside the railway station where PW-1 Head Constable Zile Singh, who was on duty at the station at that time, saw the injured being brought by Sikandar. At that time the injured was in semi-conscious condition. Head Constable Zile Singh sent the injured to Lady Harding hospital on an auto-rickshaw of PW-3 Prem Shankar. At the hospital the injured was examined by the doctor and as per the prosecution case as reflected in the MLC, at that time the blood pressure and pulse of the injured were not recordable. He had to be operated upon. The multiple injuries found on the body of the injured were later on opined to be dangerous in nature. Since the injured was not in a fit condition to give any statement about the incident on the day of the incident the police could not come to know that day as to how he had received those injuries. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured the police registered a case under Section 307 IPC vide FIR no. 277. When the injured was declared fit for making a statement on 29th May, 2005 he informed the police that in the incident in which he had received injuries four persons were involved and he named accused<APL> Ram Jane </APL>to be one of the culprits. Accused-appellant Ram Jane was then arrested on 30th May, 2005 on the pointing out of a secret informer. He was required to participate in a test identification parade(TIP) but he refused to participate in the identification parade. It appears that since in the statement of the injured he had only given the name of this accused and not any other details the police wanted to to fix the identity of this accused and that is why TIP was got arranged. Since the other culprits could not be arrested the police initially filed the charge-sheet against<APL> Ram Jane </APL>only and in due course the case against him came to be committed to Sessions Court. On 19th July, 2005 accused-appellant Surinder Singh Yadav, who had been named by Ram Jane in his disclosure statement as his associate in the crime in question, also was arrested and he also refused to participate in the test identification parade. Thereafter, a supplementary challan was presented in Court in respect of accused Surinder Singh Yadav and the same also came to be committed to Sessions Court and finally the challans against both these accused persons were clubbed together and both of them were tried together. Their other two associates, however, could not be arrested.

(3.) IT appears that the injured as well as this accused were not having any fixed abode and were using the railway station platforms as their residence. The injured, in fact, himself had candidly admitted that sometimes he was indulging in pick-pocketing also as he was a drug addict. From the suggestions put to the injured during his crossexamination on behalf of accused<APL> Ram Jane </APL>also it becomes clear even according to this accused he was known to the injured. The learned additional public prosecutor had submitted that test identification parade in respect of accused<APL> Ram Jane </APL>was got arranged by the police since only his name had been disclosed by the injured in his afore-said statement and this accused had been arrested at the instance of a secret informer and the refusal of accused<APL> Ram Jane </APL>to participate in the test identification parade also confirmed his identity as one of the persons involved in the incident. As far as the identity of accused<APL> Ram Jane </APL>is concerned his counsel Mr. Rajesh Mahajan also did not dispute the same. He also could not possibly challenge the veracity of the evidence of the injured Pappu(PW-10) in view of the fact that this accused himself had admitted that the incident in which PW-10 got injured had taken place and further because he had not even attempted to establish his defence that it was the injured himself who had attacked him first or that ten days before the incident in question PW-10 had injured him. Not only that, there are no circumstances brought on record on behalf of this accused which could even probabalise the said defences taken by him. Therefore, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured Pappu who had categorically deposed that he was assaulted by four persons all of whom were armed with knives and accused<APL> Ram Jane </APL>was one of them. Not only in his examinationin-chief but in cross-examination also the injured Pappu had claimed that accused<APL> Ram Jane </APL>had also given knife blows to him. Nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of the injured which could discredit him and no contradictions or improvements in his evidence had been shown to have been made by him. So, as far as the involvement of accused<APL> Ram Jane </APL>is concerned, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that he was one of the assailants who had assaulted PW-10 Pappu.