SAGAR ALIAS GYANENDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment would dispose of an appeal directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.04.2010 in SC No.64/2008. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE prosecution's case is that at about 8.40 PM on 23.12.2007, a PCR Constable- PW-9- received information regarding a stabbing incident at Gali No.8, Kanti Nagar, which was duly recorded in the form Ex.PW-9/A. THE police reached the spot and gathered that the injured has been taken to the G.T.B. Hospital. THE injured (Ashok Kumar "the deceased") was declared as dead in the MLC prepared at 9:40 PM. That document was exhibited in the trial as Ex.PW-25/D. THE sole eye witness was deceased's uncle; his statement was recorded at 11:40 PM (Ex.PW- 2/A); the FIR was later registered at 12:10 AM. PW-2 stated that he used to reside at the place where the incident occurred and worked in a jeans manufacturing unit at West Kanti Nagar. His nephew, the deceased, lived in the same premises and used to work in another factory in the same street. Ashok Kumar was involved in a quarrel, a few months before the incident, with one Shakti (arrayed as co-accused in the present case, but since he was a juvenile, sent for trial under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000). Shakti used to reside in Gali No.11, West Kanti Nagar. In that (previous) incident, Shakti had sustained injuries; the matter was compromised on that occasion. PW-2 further narrated that Shakti had later threatened the deceased once or twice about wrecking revenge. PW-2 mentioned about the incident which occurred on 23.12.2007 when Shakti, along with an accomplice went to the premises. Shakti allegedly caught hold of the deceased from the back, while his companion, i.e., the present appellant gave a knife blow to the deceased, who collapsed. THEreafter, the appellant and Shakti fled the spot.

(3.) MS. Sahila Lamba, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the entire prosecution version which culminated in the findings of guilt against the appellant hinged on the sole eye witnesses' testimony of PW-2, the deceased's uncle. It was urged that the said eye witness's testimony could not have been relied upon since he was untrustworthy. It was submitted that if one compares the injury inflicted on the deceased, which find corroboration in the postmortem report (Ex.PW-20/A which mentioned about the incised stab wound present on the "right side lower chest placed obliquely") with the eye witnesses testimony of PW-2 who too stated about the injury being sustained by the appellant, the contradiction would become obvious. Learned counsel argued that if, in fact, the incident had been truthfully narrated, there was no reason why the appellant should have suffered an injury on his left palm, which was spoken to by the witness and also corroborated by MLC-Ex.18/A. It was further urged that the first information or intimation received by the police was at 8:40 PM - Ex.PW-17/A mentioned about a quarrel in the premises. However, the case made out by the prosecution was one of unprovoked attack upon the deceased.