MANGAL RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal impugns a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter called the impugned judgment and the Trial Court respectively), dated 20.02.1998, in the case arising from FIR 454/98, P.S. Dabri. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that on 29.11.1992, at about 09:00 PM, one Niranjan ( the deceased ), living in the house of PW-4 and his wife (PW-2 Roopmati) was attacked with a knife. The knife blow, was given by Mangal, the Appellant. The deceased had asked the Appellant not to sit near the chabutra of the shop owned by PW-4, which was managed by PW-1 and PW-2, as it was causing inconvenince to the ladies who used to frequent it. The deceased, who was treated by PW-2 as her son, had asked the Appellant to go away, which angered him; he therefore attacked the deceased, which resulted in his death. PW-1 Shrimati, PW-2 s daughter, informed the police picket, which in turn passed on the information; later, the injured Niranjan was taken to the Deen Dayal hospital. In the meanwhile, the police, on being informed, reached the scene of crime, and later, on coming to know that the injured had been taken to the hospital, they went there. The injured, on being taken to the hospital, was declared dead, as per the MLC Ex. PW-6/A. The prosecution recorded the statements of PW- 1 and PW-2. Since both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) implicated the Appellant, their statements were recorded. The FIR was registered at 09:00 PM. The Appellant was arrested in the early hours of the morning. After investigations were conducted, the police filed a final report, arraigning him as accused for committing the offence; he was charged by the court for commission of the crime. The Appellant pleaded not guilty, and stood trial. The impugned judgment convicted him and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.

(3.) The Appellant s counsel, Mr. Malviya, argues that there are fatal inconsistencies in the prosecution version which escaped the attention of the Trial Court which wrongly found him guilty. It was alleged that the version of the two alleged eyewitnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, was so improbable and at variance with the prosecution story that their presence at the scene of occurrance was highly doubtful. Learned counsel urged that both these witnesses were interested parties, being related to the deceased, and therefore had a stake in the decision in the case. The prosecuiton version was that the crime was committed when people were moving around, and the scene was a small shop. If such were the case, the prosecution was under a duty to secure uninterested and independant witnesses, instead of family members of the deceased, who were not even injured. Their credibility was suspect, and the Trial Court ought not to have accepted their version without deliberate and careful consideration.