MAM CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th November, 1969, passed by Shri D. R. Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi where by he convicted the appellant Mam Chand under section 302, 1. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant was further convicted under section 307, Indian Penal Code . for attempt to commit the murder of Babu Lal and was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. However, Sri Chand co-accused, the father of the present appellant, was acquitted of all the charges against him on the ground that it was not possible to hold that he had any common intention with the appellant in committing the murder of Jai Ram or in assaulting Babu Lal. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Sri Chand.

(2.) With a view to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, who will sometime be referred to as the accused, it would be proper to record briefly the facts of the case. The prosecution story as revealed by P. W. 1, Chattar, is that Shrimati Roshni the daughter of his deceased brother, Suraj Mal, had been residing with him and on October 3, 1968 she had gone to bring water from a well in village Narela when the appellant went after her and misbehaved with her. This fact was apprised to him when he returned to his house. On this he asked Sri Chand, the father of the appellant that the appellant should not have misbehaved with Roshani. On October 4, 1968, at about 7 P. M. when he returned to his house from his duty as Beldar in Delhi Transport Undertaking he saw that a quarrel was going on between his wife. Ram Kali and Bohti, wife of Sri Chand. Bohti enquired from his wife as to who had thrown rubbish in the Gali towards the side of her house. Ram Kali replied that she had not placed the rubbish on which Bohti began to abuse her. On this Roshani intervened and asked as to why unnecessarily the quarrel was being prolonged when already Ram Kali had told Bohti that she had not thrown the rubbish. At that time the appellant started abusing Roshani telling her that she was a girl of loose character. Babu Lal, sister's son of the witness, who was present at the scene of occurrence, told the appellant that it was not proper for him to abuse the girl. On this the appellant took out a knife from his underwear and was about to attack Babu Lal with the same when Ram Chander and Jai Ram deceased happened to come there. Jai Ram, deceased, asked Mam Chand appellant to desist from attacking and raised his hands by telling him to stop from so doing, on which the appellant told Jai Ram that he would first see to him. The appellant then thrust that knife with both hands in the body of the deceased on the region in between the chest and the stomach as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. Babu Lal on seeing the incident, out of fear, ran towards the house of his maternal grand-father, Parma, but the appellant followed him with the knife into the house of Parma on which Babu Lal shouted "Nana, save me". One Randhir who was present at the place where the deceased was attacked ran after Mam Chand to catch him as also to save Babu Lal, The witness, Chattar, also ran to save Babu Lal. Sri Chand, the father of the appellant, the co-accused in the case, is stated to have given a lathi blow on the shoulder of the witness as a result of which he fell down. Sri Chand's wife followed them. Ram Kali, wife of the witness, gave a blow of Phoonkni to Bohti with a view to save the witness. The witness further stated that he went towards the side to which Babu Lal had run, i.e., towards the house of Parma and saw the appellant giving three knife blows to Babu Lal. In the meantime Randhir snatched the knife from Mam Chand and handed over the same to Parma. Babu Lal in his attempt to snatch the knife from Mam Chand received some injuries on his hand. The appellant thereafter fled away by jumping over the boundary wall of Parma's house. Randhir attempted to apprehend the appellant but could not succeed in doing so. Babu Lal who had fallen on the ground was lifted by the witness whose shirt was stained with blood coming out of the wounds of Babu Lal. Thereafter, the witness proceeded to Police Station which is at a distance of less than a furlong from the place of occurrence and lodged a report, copy whereof is Exhibit P.A. The blood-stained knife Exhibit P/l, was produced at the police station by Parma, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exhibit Public Witness 1/A, attested by the witness who also attested sketch plan Exhibit P.W. 1 /B. The witness in the company of the police went to the Hospital where Jai Ram had been brought but by the time the police and the witness reached the Hospital Jai Ram had died. Shirt, Exhibit P/2, belonging to the witness which was blood stained was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo. Exhibit Public Witness I /C. Sri Chand who happened to come to the Hospital, was arrested by the police at th.e pointing out of the witness. The wife of Sri Chand had also come to the Hospital and her clothes. Exhibits P/3 and P/4, which were blood stained, were taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exhibit P.W. I/D, and clothes of Sri Chand, Exhibits P/5 and P/7, were taken into possession by memo. Exhibit Public Witness I /E. Sri Chand made a disclosure statement Exhibit Public Witness 1/F to the police and got recovered Danda Exhibit P/8 from the court yard of his house. The Danda was taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exhibit Public Witness 1/G.

(3.) In cross-examination the witness stated that Jai Ram deceased was not related to him and that Jai Ram and Ram Chander and some other persons also were smoking Huqqa at a distance of about 40 yards from the place of incident in the Gali. He refuted a suggestion that the deceased had tried to attack the appellant. The witness also refuted a suggestion that Babu Lal injured the deceased with knife and also injured the appellant with that knife. The witness also negatived the suggestion that Bohti was being beaten by his wife and other womenfolk and the appellant wanted to rescue her.