DHARAM VIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and his mother Sarti and sister Ram Giri were tried before the Additional Session Judge. Delhi for an offence under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of one Rajinder on 1-10-1971. The prosecution case against these persons was that one Jhuttar, the father of the appellant, had purchased a portion of field No. 24. Chowkutiawala situated in village Pindrala, Delhi, from one Baldev for Rs. 450.00 and had occupied the said land. Subsequently, by virtue of a settlement, this land was repurchased by Mangat son of Baldev from Jhuttar on payment of Rs. 450.00 and Mangat had cultivated the land and harvested the crop. On 1-10-1970, Mangat went to the land to plough it and was later on joined by his brother Rajinder. While Mangat and Rajinder were resting near this field, Sarti and Ram Giri came there at about 12 Noon and asked Mangat and Rajinder as to why they had ploughed their land. Mangat and Rajinder replied that they had repurchased the land from Jhuttar and were entitled to plough it. The two women, however, objected to their ploughing the land and went back to the village and returned a little later along with the appellant. All the three of them again objected to Mangat and Rajinder ploughing the land. But Rajinder insisted on ploughing it. At this juncture, the appellant took out a knife from the right pocket of his shirt and at the instigation of Sarti and Ram Giri. inflicted a number of injuries on Rajinder. Mangat wanted to come to the rescue of his younger brother but was prevented from doing so by the two women. The attack on Rajinder was witnessed by Ram Lal also who happened to be grazing his cattle in the adjacent field. After thus attacking the deceased, the appellant ran away towards the fields carrying the knife with him and Sarti and Ram Giri went back to the village. Mangat found that Rajinder had succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, he proceeded to the Police Station at Najafgarh and gave report. The police arrived at the scene of offence and arrested the appellant and the two women. The clothes then worn by the appellant were found to be blood-stained and they were seized by the police. On information given by the appellant, the knife which was used by the appellant for attacking the deceased was also recovered. The appellant himself was found to be having an injury on the finger of his right hand. He was, therefore, sent to the doctor for examination of his injury.

(2.) The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in the trial Court of whom P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident. They spoke to the facts already stated. In addition to these witnesses, P. W. 6, Mam Chand, was examined to prove an alleged confession made by the appellant to him immediately after the offence. This witness stated that he saw the appellant running towards his field with blood-stained clothes and also with blood dripping from his finger of his right hand and on being questioned by this witness, the appellant stated to him that he had killed Rajinder with the knife. Some witnesses were examined to prove the alleged repurchase of the land by Mangat from Jhuttar and the alleged possession of the land by Mangat on the date of offence. But the Patwari of the village who was examined as P. W. II stated that according to the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, the land was in the possession of Jhuttar on the date of the offence and was shown as having been cultivated by him. The doctor who performed the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased was examined as P. W.I and according to him, there were five external injuries on the body of the deceased, namely,-

(3.) On dissection, he found that the injury in the chest had penetrated the pericardium and pierced the left side of the heart through and through and there was collection of blood clot inside the chest cavity. He gave his opinion that death was caused as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to all the injuries and that injury on the chest was quite sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor, who examined the appellant, was not available for examination in Court and, therefore, the injury report given by him was proved by a clerk of the Police Hospital, Rajpur Road. According to this report, there was only one injury found on the person of the appellant, namely, a simple sharp linear cut 1/2" obliquely placed on the little right finger.